Author
Zhiyong Peng
Other affiliations: University of Pittsburgh, Nanchang University
Bio: Zhiyong Peng is an academic researcher from Wuhan University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Acute kidney injury & Sepsis. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 65 publications receiving 2218 citations. Previous affiliations of Zhiyong Peng include University of Pittsburgh & Nanchang University.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This review discussed how ROS propagate lipid peroxidation chain reactions and how the products of lipidperoxidation initiate apoptosis and autophagy in current models, and summarized lipid per oxidation in pathological conditions of critical illness.
Abstract: Reactive oxygen species- (ROS-) induced lipid peroxidation plays a critical role in cell death including apoptosis, autophagy, and ferroptosis. This fundamental and conserved mechanism is based on an excess of ROS which attacks biomembranes, propagates lipid peroxidation chain reactions, and subsequently induces different types of cell death. A highly evolved sophisticated antioxidant system exists that acts to protect the cells from oxidative damage. In this review, we discussed how ROS propagate lipid peroxidation chain reactions and how the products of lipid peroxidation initiate apoptosis and autophagy in current models. We also discussed the mechanism of lipid peroxidation during ferroptosis, and we summarized lipid peroxidation in pathological conditions of critical illness. We aim to bring a more global and integrative sight to know how different ROS-induced lipid peroxidation occurs among apoptosis, autophagy, and ferroptosis.
767 citations
TL;DR: Patients with elder age, chronic comorbidities, blood leukocyte/lymphocyte count, procalcitonin level, co-infection and severe complications might increase the risk of poor clinical outcomes.
512 citations
University of Southern California1, University of Surrey2, Royal Surrey County Hospital3, University of California, San Diego4, Emory University5, University of California, San Francisco6, University of Münster7, University of Dundee8, University of Florida9, Ghent University Hospital10, Baystate Medical Center11, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Innsbruck Medical University14, Mayo Clinic15, University of Chicago16, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital17, Columbia University18, University of Alberta19, Wuhan University20, Queen Mary University of London21, Royal Society22, University of Alabama at Birmingham23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Health Science University25, Peking University26, University of Padua27, University of Pittsburgh28
TL;DR: This Consensus Statement from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative provides recommendations for the diagnosis, prevention and management of COVID-19 AKI and for areas of future research, with the aim of improving understanding of the underlying processes and outcomes for patients with CO VID- 19 AKI.
Abstract: Kidney involvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is common, and can range from the presence of proteinuria and haematuria to acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT; also known as kidney replacement therapy). COVID-19-associated AKI (COVID-19 AKI) is associated with high mortality and serves as an independent risk factor for all-cause in-hospital death in patients with COVID-19. The pathophysiology and mechanisms of AKI in patients with COVID-19 have not been fully elucidated and seem to be multifactorial, in keeping with the pathophysiology of AKI in other patients who are critically ill. Little is known about the prevention and management of COVID-19 AKI. The emergence of regional 'surges' in COVID-19 cases can limit hospital resources, including dialysis availability and supplies; thus, careful daily assessment of available resources is needed. In this Consensus Statement, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative provides recommendations for the diagnosis, prevention and management of COVID-19 AKI based on current literature. We also make recommendations for areas of future research, which are aimed at improving understanding of the underlying processes and improving outcomes for patients with COVID-19 AKI.
427 citations
TL;DR: A period of 7–13 days after illness onset is the critical stage in the COVID-19 course, which shows persistent lymphopenia, severe acute respiratory dyspnea syndrome, refractory shock, anuric acute kidney injury, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, and death.
Abstract: In December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reported from Wuhan, China. Information on the clinical course and prognosis of COVID-19 was not thoroughly described. We described the clinical courses and prognosis in COVID-19 patients. Retrospective case series of COVID-19 patients from Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in Wuhan and Xishui Hospital, Hubei Province, China, up to February 10, 2020. Epidemiological, demographic, and clinical data were collected. The clinical course of survivors and non-survivors were compared. Risk factors for death were analyzed. A total of 107 discharged patients with COVID-19 were enrolled. The clinical course of COVID-19 presented as a tri-phasic pattern. Week 1 after illness onset was characterized by fever, cough, dyspnea, lymphopenia, and radiological multi-lobar pulmonary infiltrates. In severe cases, thrombocytopenia, acute kidney injury, acute myocardial injury, and adult respiratory distress syndrome were observed. During week 2, in mild cases, fever, cough, and systemic symptoms began to resolve and platelet count rose to normal range, but lymphopenia persisted. In severe cases, leukocytosis, neutrophilia, and deteriorating multi-organ dysfunction were dominant. By week 3, mild cases had clinically resolved except for lymphopenia. However, severe cases showed persistent lymphopenia, severe acute respiratory dyspnea syndrome, refractory shock, anuric acute kidney injury, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, and death. Older age and male sex were independent risk factors for poor outcome of the illness. A period of 7–13 days after illness onset is the critical stage in the COVID-19 course. Age and male gender were independent risk factors for death of COVID-19.
288 citations
King's College London1, University of Melbourne2, University of São Paulo3, University of Tokyo4, University of New South Wales5, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center6, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center7, University of Pittsburgh8, University of California, San Francisco9, Queen Mary University of London10, University of Alberta11, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc12, Baylor College of Medicine13
TL;DR: This work reviews key relevant literature published since the 2012 KDIGO AKI guideline and outlines research needed to improve AKI management.
207 citations
Cited by
More filters
Journal Article•
28,685 citations
01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future.
Abstract: Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
4,408 citations
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
4,303 citations
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, University of Toronto10, University of Pittsburgh11, St Thomas' Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Rowan University17, University of Mississippi18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Federal University of São Paulo22, Regions Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, University of Ottawa25, University of Sydney26, University of New South Wales27, Fujita Health University28, University of Copenhagen29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Christiana Care Health System31, Stanford University32, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology33, University of Kansas34, Harvard University35, California Pacific Medical Center36, University of Amsterdam37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Houston Methodist Hospital39
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was assembled at key international meetings (forSurviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 as discussed by the authors ).
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for
2,414 citations