Search

IntroductionUsing ozone therapy to manage COVID-19 patients has been accompanied by conflicting results in prior studies. Therefore, we aimed to widely assess the effects of ozone as adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Springer, and Sage journals were searched systematically until April 2022. Mortality rate, ICU admission, hospital-length stay, negative PCR, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic functions, as well as inflammatory and blood systems were pooled to compare the efficacy of ozone as adjacent therapy (OZ) and standard treatment (ST). Analyses were run with the random/fixed models, sub-group analysis, funnel plot, and sensitivity analysis using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software version 2.0.ResultsThe results of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four case-control studies with a total of 371 COVID-19 positive patients were analyzed. The OZ group patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (P > 0.05), lower ICU admissions (P > 0.05), and lower mortality rates (P < 0.05) than the ST group cases. After treatment, 41% more COVID-19 patients had negative PCR tests than the ST group (P < 0.05). Serum creatinine and urea levels were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Moreover, except for albumin serum levels, which decreased significantly in the OZ group, serum bilirubin, ALT, and AST were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Both arms did not show a decrease in C-reactive protein blood levels (P > 0.05), but the OZ group showed a significant modification in LDH serum levels (P < 0.05). Unlike the d-dimer and WBC serum levels (P > 0.05), platelet levels were increased in the OZ group (P < 0.05). No negative side effects were demonstrated in either group.ConclusionOzone therapy was effective significantly on PCR test and LDH serum levels, as well as mortality based on overall estimation. Concerning the length of hospital stay and ICU admissions, although the results were insignificant, their effect sizes were notable clinically. More RCT studies are needed to show the efficacy of ozone therapy on other studied variables.

BackgroundModified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) are widely used in predicting the mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission of critically ill patients. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the prognostic value of NEWS and MEWS for predicting ICU readmission, mortality, and related outcomes in critically ill patients at the time of ICU discharge.MethodsThis multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted over a year, from April 2019 to March 2020, in the general ICUs of two university-affiliated hospitals in Northwest Iran. MEWS and NEWS were compared based on the patients’ outcomes (including mortality, ICU readmission, time to readmission, discharge type, mechanical ventilation (MV), MV duration, and multiple organ failure after readmission) using the univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the outcome predictability of MEWS and NEWS.ResultsA total of 410 ICU patients were enrolled in this study. According to multivariable logistic regression analysis, both MEWS and NEWS were predictors of ICU readmission, time to readmission, MV status after readmission, MV duration, and multiple organ failure after readmission. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting mortality was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88–0.94, P < 0.0001) for the NEWS and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.84–0.91, P < 0.0001) for the MEWS. There was no significant difference between the AUC of the NEWS and the MEWS for predicting mortality (P = 0.082). However, for ICU readmission (0.84 vs. 0.71), time to readmission (0.82 vs. 0.67), MV after readmission (0.83 vs. 0.72), MV duration (0.81 vs. 0.67), and multiple organ failure (0.833 vs. 0.710), the AUCs of MEWS were significantly greater (P < 0.001).ConclusionNational Early Warning Score and MEWS values of >4 demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in identifying the risk of mortality for the patients’ discharge from ICU. However, we found that the MEWS showed superiority over the NEWS score in predicting other outcomes. Eventually, MEWS could be considered an efficient prediction score for morbidity and mortality of critically ill patients.

BackgroundTo develop ten new integrated weaning indices that can predict the weaning outcome better than the traditional indices.MethodsThis retrospective-prospective derivation-validation observational multicenter clinical trial (Clinical Trial.Gov, NCT 01779297), was conducted on 1,175 adult patients admitted at 9 academic affiliated intensive care units (ICUs; 4 surgical and 5 medical), from Jan 2013 to Dec 2018. All patients, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h and ready for weaning were enrolled. The study had two phases: at first, the threshold values of each index that best discriminate between a successful and an unsuccessful weaning outcome was determined among 208 patients in the derivation group. In the second phase, the predictive performance of these values was prospectively tested in 967 patients in the validation group. In the prospective-validation set we used Bayes’ theorem to assess the probability of each test in predicting weaning.ResultsIn the prospective validation group, sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and finally area under the receiver operator characteristic curves and standard errors for each index (ten formulae) were calculated. Statistical values of ten formulae for aforesaid variables were higher than 87% (0.87–0.99).ConclusionThe new indices can be used for hospitalized patients in intensive care settings for accurate prediction of the weaning outcome.