Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units

Brun‐Buisson, Christian; Minelli, Cosetta; Bertolini, Guido; Brazzi, Luca; Pimentel, J.; Lewandowski, K.; Bion, J; Romand, Jacques-A.; Villar, Jesús; Thorsteinsson, Adalbjörn; Damas, Pierre; Armaganidis, Apostolos; Lemaire, F

doi:10.1007/s00134-003-2136-x

Cited by 317 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ninety-day mortality for ARF was 31%, lying within the 31-42% reported in the literature [2][3][4][5]7]; as many as 48.4% of patients had some disability on admission. The figure of 47% mortality for ALI/ARDS falls within the expected 39-60% of epidemiological studies [4,7,10,12,13]. Once more, severity of illness on admission according to SAPS II, chronic heart disease, suspected aspiration and baseline PaO 2 /FIO 2 were independently associated with a worse outcome.…”

supporting

confidence: 64%

The FINNALI study on acute respiratory failure: not the final cut

Bakker

2009

Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 64%

The FINNALI study on acute respiratory failure: not the final cut

Bakker

2009

Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…By definition, ARDS patients have severe pulmonary edema in the region of 15 to 20 ml.kg -1 of body weight [7,8] and it is probable that other factors, extrapulmonary, will have a more marked prognostic impact. It should therefore be remembered that the degree of hypoxemia is a controversial prognostic factor during ARDS [9,10].…”

Section: The Consequences Of Pulmonary Edema During Ardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid Management in Acute Lung Injury and ARDS

Roch

Guervilly

Papazian

2010

Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the incidence of ARDS ranges from 1.5 cases per 100 000 [2] to nearly 79 cases per 100 000 [3], with European countries reporting a lower incidence than USA [6]. Moreover, studies from Brazil reported incidence rates ranging from 1.8 to 31 per 100 000 [7,8].Although the overall survival rate is improving [9,10], there is a notable difference when considering in-hospital mortality over several observational studies [2][3][4][8][9][10][11]. This may be explained by differences in risk factors, availability of diagnostics, ability to recognise ARDS and some selection biases affecting clinical trials [12].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its first description, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been acknowledged to be a major clinical problem in respiratory medicine. From July 2015 to July 2016 almost 300 indexed articles were published on ARDS. This review summarises only eight of them as an arbitrary overview of clinical relevance: definition and epidemiology, risk factors, prevention and treatment. A strict application of definition criteria is crucial, but the diverse resource-setting scenarios foster geographic variability and contrasting outcome data. A large international multicentre prospective cohort study including 50 countries across five continents reported that ARDS is underdiagnosed, and there is potential for improvement in its management. Furthermore, epidemiological data from low-income countries suggest that a revision of the current definition of ARDS is needed in order to improve its recognition and global clinical outcome. In addition to the well-known risk-factors for ARDS, exposure to high ozone levels and low vitamin D plasma concentrations were found to be predisposing circumstances. Drug-based preventive strategies remain a major challenge, since two recent trials on aspirin and statins failed to reduce the incidence in atrisk patients. A new disease-modifying therapy is awaited: some recent studies promised to improve the prognosis of ARDS, but mortality and disabling complications are still high in survivors in intensive care. Definition and epidemiologySince its first description by ASHBAUGH et al. [1] in 1967, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely recognised as a major clinical problem worldwide, carrying a high morbidity and mortality burden [2][3][4]. Although the recent Berlin definition [5] is probably much better than previous ones, there is still a high variability in both epidemiology and clinical outcomes in diverse healthcare settings [4]. In fact, the incidence of ARDS ranges from 1.5 cases per 100 000 [2] to nearly 79 cases per 100 000 [3], with European countries reporting a lower incidence than USA [6]. Moreover, studies from Brazil reported incidence rates ranging from 1.8 to 31 per 100 000 [7,8].Although the overall survival rate is improving [9,10], there is a notable difference when considering in-hospital mortality over several observational studies [2][3][4][8][9][10][11]. This may be explained by differences in risk factors, availability of diagnostics, ability to recognise ARDS and some selection biases affecting clinical trials [12]. Recently, a large international observational study (the LUNG SAFE trial) evaluated the incidence of ARDS across 459 intensive care units (ICUs) in 50 countries [13]. To assess the clinical recognition of ARDS according to the latest definition, any patient inclusion into the trial was made through a computer algorithm following the Berlin criteria [5], and then compared to the diagnosis made by the attending physicians. Among 4499 patients who developed acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, ARDS occurred in 1...

show abstract

Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units

Cited by 317 publications

References 0 publications

The FINNALI study on acute respiratory failure: not the final cut

The FINNALI study on acute respiratory failure: not the final cut

Fluid Management in Acute Lung Injury and ARDS

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About