Institution
King Abdulaziz Medical City
Healthcare•Riyadh, Saudi Arabia•
About: King Abdulaziz Medical City is a healthcare organization based out in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 2975 authors who have published 2378 publications receiving 37677 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Rhode Island Hospital7, Utrecht University8, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences9, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital10, Peking Union Medical College Hospital11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Humanitas University13, University of Ulsan14, National Institutes of Health15, Imperial College London16, United Arab Emirates University17, Population Health Research Institute18, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust19, Emory University Hospital20, University at Buffalo21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Milano-Bicocca23, King Abdulaziz Medical City24, King Saud Medical City25, Royal North Shore Hospital26, The George Institute for Global Health27, University of Virginia28, University of Washington29
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.
We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
1,762 citations
••
TL;DR: Disease caused by MERS-CoV presents with a wide range of clinical manifestations and is associated with substantial mortality in admitted patients who have medical comorbidities, and major gaps in knowledge of the epidemiology, community prevalence, and clinical spectrum of infection and disease need urgent definition.
Abstract: Summary Background Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a new human disease caused by a novel coronavirus (CoV). Clinical data on MERS-CoV infections are scarce. We report epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of 47 cases of MERS-CoV infections, identify knowledge gaps, and define research priorities. Methods We abstracted and analysed epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data from confirmed cases of sporadic, household, community, and health-care-associated MERS-CoV infections reported from Saudi Arabia between Sept 1, 2012, and June 15, 2013. Cases were confirmed as having MERS-CoV by real-time RT-PCR. Findings 47 individuals (46 adults, one child) with laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV disease were identified; 36 (77%) were male (male:female ratio 3·3:1). 28 patients died, a 60% case-fatality rate. The case-fatality rate rose with increasing age. Only two of the 47 cases were previously healthy; most patients (45 [96%]) had underlying comorbid medical disorders, including diabetes (32 [68%]), hypertension (16 [34%]), chronic cardiac disease (13 [28%]), and chronic renal disease (23 [49%]). Common symptoms at presentation were fever (46 [98%]), fever with chills or rigors (41 [87%]), cough (39 [83%]), shortness of breath (34 [72%]), and myalgia (15 [32%]). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also frequent, including diarrhoea (12 [26%]), vomiting (ten [21%]), and abdominal pain (eight [17%]). All patients had abnormal findings on chest radiography, ranging from subtle to extensive unilateral and bilateral abnormalities. Laboratory analyses showed raised concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase (23 [49%]) and aspartate aminotransferase (seven [15%]) and thrombocytopenia (17 [36%]) and lymphopenia (16 [34%]). Interpretation Disease caused by MERS-CoV presents with a wide range of clinical manifestations and is associated with substantial mortality in admitted patients who have medical comorbidities. Major gaps in our knowledge of the epidemiology, community prevalence, and clinical spectrum of infection and disease need urgent definition. Funding None.
1,275 citations
••
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Utrecht University7, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital8, Peking Union Medical College Hospital9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Ulsan11, National Institutes of Health12, Imperial College London13, United Arab Emirates University14, Humanitas University15, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust16, Emory University Hospital17, University at Buffalo18, Baylor College of Medicine19, University of Milano-Bicocca20, King Abdulaziz Medical City21, King Saud Medical City22, The George Institute for Global Health23, University of Virginia24, University of Washington25
TL;DR: A panel of 36 experts from 12 countries issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
832 citations
••
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, Iran University of Medical Sciences2, American University of Beirut3, King Abdulaziz Medical City4, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences5, University of Oregon6, Public Health Foundation of India7, International Planned Parenthood Federation8, Aga Khan University9, Institute of Education10, University of Washington11, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre12, Kunming Medical University13, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain14, Harvard University15, University of Melbourne16, University of Balamand17, Monash University18, Jawaharlal Nehru University19, Columbia University20, Alfaisal University21, National Institutes of Health22, University of London23, International Center for Research on Women24, Centre for Mental Health25, Royal Children's Hospital26, University College London27
TL;DR: The past, present, and anticipated burden of disease in young people aged 10-24 years from 1990 to 2013 is reported using data on mortality, disability, injuries, and health risk factors.
705 citations
••
Hammersmith Hospital1, University College London2, Imperial College London3, Cancer Research UK4, Royal North Shore Hospital5, Flinders University6, Monash University7, Ain Shams University8, French Institute of Health and Medical Research9, Charité10, University of Oldenburg11, Magna Græcia University12, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart13, University of Verona14, Tokyo Medical University15, Aichi Medical University16, King Abdulaziz Medical City17, Seoul National University Hospital18, Keimyung University19, University of Ulsan20, Inje University21, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria22, University of Amsterdam23, VU University Amsterdam24, Istanbul University25, University of Florence26, Conquest Hospital27, University of Exeter28, Anglia Ruskin University29, Emory University30, United States Department of Veterans Affairs31, University of Washington32, Stony Brook University33, Canterbury Christ Church University34, Duke University35, Hospital Clínico San Carlos36, Complutense University of Madrid37
TL;DR: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularizations guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year.
Abstract: BackgroundCoronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. MethodsWe randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. ResultsAt 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference i...
672 citations
Authors
Showing all 2984 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Ziad A. Memish | 112 | 686 | 136145 |
Yaseen M. Arabi | 76 | 488 | 25995 |
Sudhesh Kumar | 63 | 181 | 13576 |
Mouaz H. Al-Mallah | 56 | 408 | 12751 |
Ali H. Hajeer | 54 | 238 | 9851 |
Steven J. Keteyian | 49 | 220 | 10909 |
Hanan H. Balkhy | 48 | 180 | 9970 |
Hala Tamim | 46 | 183 | 6174 |
Ahmad Aljada | 45 | 102 | 13584 |
Hani Tamim | 40 | 414 | 7451 |
Clinton A. Brawner | 37 | 131 | 4231 |
Hou-Feng Zheng | 33 | 77 | 7864 |
Mary P. Tully | 33 | 168 | 4610 |
Sherif Sakr | 33 | 217 | 4311 |
Peter T. McCollum | 32 | 108 | 3088 |