Evidence Hub

Microbial dynamics, risk factors and outcomes of secondary pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Geng-Ning Hu, Wei-Lun Liu, Chia-Hao Chang, Sheng-Yuan Ruan, Kuei-Pin Chung, Jung-Yien Chien, Chong-Jen Yu

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi, 2024

19 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Secondary pneumonia has a significant clinical impact on critically ill patients with COVID-19.

AIM

Considering potential geographic variations, this study explores the clinical implications of secondary pneumonia within East Asian populations.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study enrolled critical COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care units (ICUs) admission in Taiwan from December 31, 2020, to June 1, 2022.

FINDINGS

Among the 187 critical COVID-19 patients, 80 (42.8%) developed secondary pneumonia. The primary causative pathogens were gram-negative bacilli (GNB) (76.8%). Gram-positive cocci and fungi were mainly observed during the initial two weeks of ICU stay. Notably, the incidence of pulmonary aspergillosis was 9.2% during the first week of ICU stay and all Staphylococcus aureus were susceptible to methicillin. Multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) were responsible for 28.3% of the cases, exhibiting significantly longer ICU stays compared to the non-MDRO group (median, 27 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were associated with a significantly increased risk of secondary pneumonia. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with secondary pneumonia than in those without (37.7% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.02) and survival analysis demonstrated gram-negative bacilli-related secondary pneumonia…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free