Evidence Hub

Early diagnosis and appropriate respiratory support for Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia associated acute respiratory distress syndrome in young and adult patients: a case series from two centers

L. Ding, Yu Zhao, Xu-yan Li, Rui Wang, Ying Li, Xiao Tang, Bing Sun, Hang-Yong He

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2020

10 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Mycoplasma pneumoniae (M. pneumoniae) is one of the most common causes of community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Establishing an early diagnosis of M. pneumoniae pneumonia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may have important therapeutic implications. We describe diagnosis and management of M. pneumoniae pneumonia induced ARDS in a case series of adults and youth hospitalized with radiographically confirmed CAP prospectively enrolled in an observational cohort study in two university teaching hospitals, from November 2017 to October 2019. In all 10 patients, early and rapid diagnosis for severe M. pneumoniae pneumonia with ARDS was achieved with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) testing of samples from the lower respiratory tract or pleural effusion. The average PaO2/FiO2 of all patients was 180 mmHg. Of the 10 cases, 4 cases had moderate ARDS (100 mmHg ≤ PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg) and 3 cases had severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was applied in all patients, though only two patients were sufficiently supported with HFNC. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) was required in 5 patients. High resistance (median 15 L/cmH2O/s) and low compliance (median 38 ml/cmH2O) was observed in 4 cases. In these 4 cases, recruitment maneuvers (RM) were applied, with 1 patient demonstrating no response to RM. Prone positioning were applied in 4 cases. Two cases needed ECMO support with median…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 10 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