Youzhong An

Dr. Youzhong An


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
12 July 2017 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HZHuiying Zhao
Huiying Zhao
HWHuixia Wang
Huixia Wang
FSFeng Sun
Feng Sun
SLShan Lyu
Shan Lyu
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients. A review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality. Eleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC, n = 1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, P = 0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97, P = 0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67, P < 0.0001) when compared to COT. There was no difference in mortality between HFNC and COT utilization (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, P = 0.96). When HFNC was compared to NIV, there was no difference in the intubation rate (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39, P = 0.84), the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28, P = 0.97) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68, P = 0.65). Compared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no. CRD42016039581 .

14 January 2022 in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JWJieqiong Wang
Jieqiong Wang
HZHuiying Zhao
Huiying Zhao
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An
Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a transmembrane glycoprotein, is an important part of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). In the COVID-19 epidemic, it was found to be the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). ACE2 maintains homeostasis by inhibiting the Ang II-AT1R axis and activating the Ang I (1-7)-MasR axis, protecting against lung, heart and kidney injury. In addition, ACE2 helps transport amino acids across the membrane. ACE2 sheds from the membrane, producing soluble ACE2 (sACE2). Previous studies have pointed out that sACE2 plays a role in the pathology of the disease, but the underlying mechanism is not yet clear. Recent studies have confirmed that sACE2 can also act as the receptor of SARS-COV-2, mediating viral entry into the cell and then spreading to the infective area. Elevated concentrations of sACE2 are more related to disease. Recombinant human ACE2, an exogenous soluble ACE2, can be used to supplement endogenous ACE2. It may represent a potent COVID-19 treatment in the future. However, the specific administration concentration needs to be further investigated.

20 May 2017 in Chinese Medical Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HZHui-Ying Zhao
Hui-Ying Zhao
JGJian Gu
Jian Gu
JLJie Lyu
Jie Lyu
DLDan Liu
Dan Liu
YWYi-Tong Wang
Yi-Tong Wang
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An
Background: The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We compared the pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous infusion of meropenem versus intermittent administration in such patients. Methods: Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with severe sepsis or septic shock who received meropenem were randomly assigned to either the continuous (n = 25) or intermittent groups (n = 25). The continuous group received a loading dose of 0.5 g of meropenem followed by a continuous infusion of 3 g/day; the intermittent group received an initial dose of 1.5 g followed by 1 g for every 8 h. Clinical success, microbiological eradication, superinfection, ICU mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of meropenem treatment were assessed. Serial plasma meropenem concentrations for the first and third dosing periods (steady state) were also measured. Results: Clinical success was similar in both the continuous (64%) and intermittent (56%) groups (P = 0.564); the rates of microbiological eradication and superinfection (81.8% vs. 66.7% [ P = 0.255] and 4% vs. 16% [ P = 0.157], respectively) showed improvement in the continuous group. The duration of meropenem treatment was significantly shorter in the continuous group (7.6 vs. 9.4 days; P= 0.035), where a better steady-state concentration was also achieved. Peak and trough concentrations were significantly different between the continuous and intermittent groups both in the first (Cmax: 19.8 mg/L vs. 51.8 mg/L, P= 0.000; Cmin: 11.2 mg/L vs. 0.5 mg/L, P= 0.000) and third dosing periods (Cmax: 12.5 mg/L vs. 46.4 mg/L, P= 0.000; Cmin: 11.4 mg/L vs. 0.6 mg/L, P= 0.000). For medium-susceptibility pathogens, continuous infusion concentrations above the minimal inhibitory concentration were 100%, which was better than that in the intermittent group. Conclusions: Continuous infusion of meropenem provides significantly shorter treatment duration and a tendency for superior bacteriological efficacy than intermittent administration. Continuous infusion may be more optimal against intermediate-susceptibility pathogens.

9 August 2021 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JZJing Zhou
Jing Zhou
Tianbing WangTianbing Wang
Tianbing Wang
IBIgor Belenkiy
Igor Belenkiy
Timothy Craig HardcastleTimothy Craig Hardcastle
Timothy Craig Hardcastle
Jean-Jacques RoubyJean-Jacques Rouby
Jean-Jacques Rouby
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An
As emerging countries, China, Russia, and South Africa are establishing and/or improving their trauma systems. China has recently established a trauma system named “the Chinese Regional Trauma Care System” and covered over 200 million populations. It includes paramedic-staffed pre-hospital care, in-hospital care in certified trauma centers, trauma registry, quality assurance, continuous improvement and ongoing coverage of the entire Chinese territory. The Russian trauma system was formed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Pre-hospital care is region-based, with a regional coordination center that determines which team will go to the scene and the nearest hospital where the victim should be transported. Physician-staffed ambulances are organized according to three levels of trauma severity corresponding to three levels of trauma centers where in-hospital care is managed by a trauma team. No national trauma registry exists in Russia. Improvements to the Russian trauma system have been scheduled. There is no unified trauma system in South Africa, and trauma care is organized by public and private emergency medical service in each province. During the pre-hospital care, paramedics provide basic or advanced life support services and transport the patients to the nearest hospital because of the limited number of trauma centers. In-hospital care is inclusive with a limited number of accredited trauma centers. In-hospital care is managed by emergency medicine with multidisciplinary care by the various specialties. There is no national trauma registry in South Africa. The South African trauma system is facing multiple challenges. An increase in financial support, training for primary emergency trauma care, and coordination of private sector, need to be planned.

1 December 2019 in Journal of Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HZHuiying Zhao
Huiying Zhao
SYShuguang Yang
Shuguang Yang
HWHuixia Wang
Huixia Wang
HZHua Zhang
Hua Zhang
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An

14 September 2017 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DLDan Liu
Dan Liu
JLJie Lyu
Jie Lyu
HZHuiying Zhao
Huiying Zhao
YAYouzhong An
Youzhong An
To investigate the influence of analgesic-based midazolam sedation on delirium and outcomes in critically ill patients and to analyze the risk factors of delirium. Single center, prospective randomized controlled trial. A surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary care hospital in China. Mechanically ventilated patients requiring sedation. Patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit who required sedation and were undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer than 24 hours were randomly divided into three groups: 1) the remifentanil group received remifentanil and midazolam, 2) the fentanyl group received fentanyl and midazolam, and 3) the control group received only midazolam. The analgesic effect, sedation depth, and presence of delirium were evaluated. To compare the effect of different therapies on the occurrence of delirium, days of mechanical ventilation, length of the ICU stay, and 28-day mortality were measured along with the risk factors for delirium. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 35 patients were included in each group. Compared to the control group, patients who received remifentanil and fentanyl required less midazolam each day (P = 0.038 and <0.001, respectively). Remifentanil has a significant effect on reducing the occurrence of delirium (P = 0.007). The logistic regression analysis of delirium demonstrated that remifentanil (OR 0.230, 95%Cl 0.074–0.711, P = 0.011) is independent protective factors for delirium, and high APACHE II score (OR 1.103, 95%Cl 1.007–1.208, P = 0.036) is the independent risk factor for delirium. Remifentanil and fentanyl can reduce the amount of midazolam required, and remifentanil could further reduce the occurrence of delirium.