Development of septic shock and prognostic assessment in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease outside Wuhan, China

2Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The study aims to illustrate the clinical characteristics and development of septic shock in intensive care unit (ICU) patients confirmed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and to perform a comprehensive analysis of the association between septic shock and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). METHODS: Patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were admitted to the ICU of the Third People's Hospital of Shenzhen from January 1 to February 7, 2020, were enrolled. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with and without septic shock. RESULTS: In this study, 35 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included. Among them, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-67 years), and 10 (28.4%) patients were female. The median ICU length of stay was 16 days (IQR 8-23 days). Three (8.6%) patients died during hospitalization. Nine (25.7%) patients developed septic shock in the ICU, and these patients had a significantly higher incidence of organ dysfunction and a worse prognosis than patients without septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Septic shock is associated with a poor outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients and is one of the hallmarks of the severity of patients receiving ICU care. A dysregulated immune response, uncontrolled inflammation, and coagulation disorders are strongly associated with the development and progression of COVID-19-related septic shock.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yao, R. Q., Ren, C., Ren, D., Li, J. X., Li, Y., Liu, X. Y., … Yao, Y. M. (2021). Development of septic shock and prognostic assessment in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease outside Wuhan, China. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12(4), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.5847/WJEM.J.1920-8642.2021.04.007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free