IMPORTANCE Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts-for example prone positioning-in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. EXPOSURES Acute respiratory distress syndrome. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS. RESULTS Of 29 144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H 2 O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has undergone 30 years of development. Functional chest examinations with this technology are considered clinically relevant, especially for monitoring regional lung ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients and for regional pulmonary function testing in patients with chronic lung diseases. As EIT becomes an established medical technology, it requires consensus examination, nomenclature, data analysis and interpretation schemes. Such consensus is needed to compare, understand and reproduce study findings from and among different research groups, to enable large clinical trials and, ultimately, routine clinical use. Recommendations of how EIT findings can be applied to generate diagnoses and impact clinical decision-making and therapy planning are required. This consensus paper was prepared by an international working group, collaborating on the clinical promotion of EIT called TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. It addresses the stated needs by providing (1) a new classification of core processes involved in chest EIT examinations and data analysis, (2) focus on clinical applications with structured reviews and outlooks (separately for adult and neonatal/paediatric patients), (3) a structured framework to categorise and understand the relationships among analysis approaches and their clinical roles, (4) consensus, unified terminology with clinical user-friendly definitions and explanations, (5) a review of all major work in thoracic EIT and (6) recommendations for future development (193 pages of online supplements systematically linked with the chief sections of the main document). We expect this information to be useful for clinicians and researchers working with EIT, as well as for industry producers of this technology.
Background Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of a novel in ammatory index, systemic immune-in ammation index (SII), with the clinical outcomes of patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We evaluated a cohort study of COVID-19 patients (18-95 years old) in Tongji Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology from January 28th 2020 to February 29th 2020. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups (including low-SII group and high-SII group) according to the cutoff point which is analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Univariate and multivariate COX regression analysis were performed to identify the factors associated with the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection. The primary and secondary outcome were in-hospital mortality and the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respectively. Results A number of 326 adult patients (43.87% males, 61.22 ± 0.86 years) were enrolled in the nal analyses. There were 147 cases (45.09%) died in hospital and 116 patients (35.58%) developed ARDS. ROC curve analysis indicated that the SII had a greater prediction accuracy in predicting the in-hospital mortality (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.789, sensitivity = 69.90%, speci city = 70.80%) and the development of ARDS (AUC = 0.736, sensitivity = 67.80%, speci city = 71.10%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients in high-SII group had a greater risk of adverse clinical outcomes (all P < 0.001). The multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that elevated SII was found as the risk predictor of inhospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.839, 95% con dence interval [CI] = 1.116-7.222, P = 0.028) and the developed ARDS (HR = 6.832, 95%CI = 2.583-18.074, P < 0.001). Additional signi cant independent predictor for adverse outcomes was the lymphocyte proportion. What's more, it suggests that the invasive mechanical ventilation performed in the early stage of the disease progression may be bene cial for patients. Conclusion SII, a novel biomarker, might be a remarkable prognostic indicator to assess the in-hospital mortality and the development of ARDS in patients with COVID-19 and help for clinical risk assessment. however, it is much more infectious [5]. The primary way that SARS-CoV-2 appears to spread is mainly by close person-to-person contact via droplets [6]. The clinical features of COVID-19 covered from asymptomatic or mild symptoms, to severe cases with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or organ failure [7]. The underlying mechanism of the disease is still unclear. Preliminary studies showed that system in ammatory response played an important role in the progression of the disease [8, 9]. According to Matthew Zirui Tay et al research, for the immune system damage and the uncontrolled in ammatory response brought to human, COVID-19 could cause damage and functional impairment of major organs [10]. Therefore, it is essential to nd sensitive biomarkers, which associate with the in ammatory status and are ...
Improved gas exchange has been observed during spontaneous breathing with airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) as compared with controlled mechanical ventilation. This study was designed to determine whether use of APRV with spontaneous breathing as a primary ventilatory support modality better prevents deterioration of cardiopulmonary function than does initial controlled mechanical ventilation in patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Thirty patients with multiple trauma were randomly assigned to either breathe spontaneously with APRV (APRV Group) (n = 15) or to receive pressure-controlled, time-cycled mechanical ventilation (PCV) for 72 h followed by weaning with APRV (PCV Group) (n = 15). Patients maintained spontaneous breathing during APRV with continuous infusion of sufentanil and midazolam (Ramsay sedation score [RSS] of 3). Absence of spontaneous breathing (PCV Group) was induced with sufentanil and midazolam (RSS of 5) and neuromuscular blockade. Primary use of APRV was associated with increases (p < 0.05) in respiratory system compliance (CRS), arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), cardiac index (CI), and oxygen delivery (DO2), and with reductions (p < 0.05) in venous admixture (QVA/QT), and oxygen extraction. In contrast, patients who received 72 h of PCV had lower CRS, PaO2, CI, DO2, and Q VA/Q T values (p < 0.05) and required higher doses of sufentanil (p < 0.05), midazolam (p < 0.05), noradrenalin (p < 0.05), and dobutamine (p < 0.05). CRS, PaO2), CI and DO2 were lowest (p < 0.05) and Q VA/Q T was highest (p < 0.05) during PCV. Primary use of APRV was consistently associated with a shorter duration of ventilatory support (APRV Group: 15 +/- 2 d [mean +/- SEM]; PCV Group: 21 +/- 2 d) (p < 0.05) and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (APRV Group: 23 +/- 2 d; PCV Group: 30 +/- 2 d) (p < 0.05). These findings indicate that maintaining spontaneous breathing during APRV requires less sedation and improves cardiopulmonary function, presumably by recruiting nonventilated lung units, requiring a shorter duration of ventilatory support and ICU stay.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.