Retrospective study shows vaccination reduces pulmonary involvements in COVID-19 patients, indicating health benefits.
Background COVID‐19 infection has been a major pandemic of this century, causing deaths, economic hardship, and poverty worldwide. At the moment, vaccination remains the most effective measure against this health challenge. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccination in the affected patients who had been shown positive previously by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Methods We compared the retrospective records of 547 patients with COVID‐19 over the prior 18 months (Mar. 2021 to Sept. 2022). Data from the patients' hospital records were divided into two groups of vaccinated ( N = 334) versus non‐vaccinated ( N = 213) from individuals who had a prior positive PCR test. Subsequently, the patients' chest computed tomography (CT) images were evaluated and scored for the lung involvements based on a pathologically established scoring system. Results Based on the CT image scores, it was evident that the vaccination significantly reduced the lung involvements in these patients. The severity of lung involvements was significantly less in the vaccinated than in the non‐vaccinated group, regardless of being younger or older than 65 years old. Also, the arterial oxygen saturation was significantly greater in the vaccinated than in the non‐vaccinated patients. Lastly, the vaccination had a significant effect on lowering the mortality rate and intubation in patients older than 65 years. However, there was no significant difference between the vaccinated versus the non‐vaccinated groups with respect to their admission into the ICU at the local hospital. Conclusions Based on the results, COVID‐19 vaccination reduced the severity of lung involvements in patients significantly. Hence, it can be considered a protective measure in reducing the disease burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: