4.6 Article

Plasminogen improves lung lesions and hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19

期刊

QJM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 113, 期 8, 页码 539-545

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcaa121

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lungs from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have shown typical signs of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), formation of hyaline membrane mainly composed of fibrin and 'ground-glass' opacity. Previously, we showed plasminogen itself is a key regulator in fibrin degradation, wound healing and infection. Aim: We aimed to investigate whether plasminogen can improve lung lesions and hypoxemia of COVID-19. Design: Thirteen clinically moderate, severe or critical COVID-19 patients were treated with atomization inhalation of freeze-dried plasminogen. Methods: Levels of their lung lesions, oxygen saturation and heart rates were compared before and after treatment by computed tomography scanning images and patient monitor. Results: After plasminogen inhalation, conditions of lung lesions in five clinically moderate patients have quickly improved, shown as the decreased range and density of 'ground glass' opacity. Improvements of oxygen saturation were observed in six clinically severe patients. In the two patients with critical conditions, the oxygen levels have significantly increased from 79-82% to 91% just about 1h after the first inhalation. In 8 of 13 patients, the heart rates had slowed down. For the five clinically moderate patients, the difference is even statistically significant. Furthermore, a general relief of chest tightness was observed. Conclusion: Whereas it is reported that plasminogen is dramatically increased in adults with ARDS, this study suggests that additional plasminogen may be effective and efficient in treating lung lesions and hypoxemia during COVID-19 infections. Although further studies are needed, this study highlights a possible hope of efficiently combating this rapid epidemic emergency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据