Clinical outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a university hospital

Natthawan Sanguanwong; Napplika Kongpolprom

Détails du journal et du numéro

Asian Biomedicine

Détails du magazine

Format: Magazine
eISSN: 1875-855X
Première parution: 01 Jun 2007
Périodicité: 6 fois par an
Langues: Anglais

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by severe hypoxemia and non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema. In 1967, Ashbaugh et al. [1] reported a case series of 12 critically ill patients with tachypnea and hypoxemia accompanied by decreased lung compliance and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-rays from different etiologies. This was the first established ARDS. Thenceforth, there was no common definition of ARDS [2], resulting in various published prevalences in intensive care units (ICUs). Until 2012, Berlin definition of ARDS was created by a consensus panel of experts (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) to simplify the diagnosis and prognosticate outcomes [3]. ARDS was defined as a clinical entity, which consisted of an acute onset (less than 1 week), bilateral opacities on computed tomography or chest radiograph, a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) ≤300 mmHg with a minimum of 5 cm H₂O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and no cardiac failure or fluid overload.

ARDS is associated with high mortality. For over 20 years, many therapeutic strategies have been provided to improve patients’ outcomes. In 2000, the ARDS network established an important study “Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for ALI and ARDS.” The study demonstrated that the use of low tidal volume (TV; 6 mL/kg predicted weight) significantly reduced mortality from 40% to 30% and increased ventilator-free days, compared with traditional TV (12 mL/kg predicted weight) [4]. In 2010, the ACURASYS study investigators reported that the use of neuromuscular blockade (cisatracurium) in patients with early ARDS with PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio <150 for 48 h significantly reduced both 28-day and 90-day mortalities and increased ventilator-free days without increased incidence of ICU-acquired weakness [5]. In addition, PROSEVA study showed that prone position with lung-protective strategy reduced 28-day and 90-day mortalities and this strategy should be considered in patients with early ARDS and severe hypoxemia who have the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of <150 despite FiO₂ of ≥0.6 and PEEP of ≥5 cm H₂O [6].

On the contrary, some strategies did not improve survival and might be harmful to ARDS patients. There were 2 landmark studies of high-frequency oscillation ventilation (HFOV), including OSCAR and OSCILATE trials [7, 8]. The former study showed that HFOV did not reduce mortality and increased the need of sedatives and muscle relaxants. The latter study showed that HFOV increased hospital mortality (47% in the HFOV group vs 35% in the low TV with the high PEEP group) and the need of sedatives, muscle relaxants, and vasopressors. Furthermore, a recent study showed that lung recruitment with PEEP set by respiratory system compliance significantly increased 28-day and 6-month mortalities with higher incidences of barotrauma and hypotension in moderate to severe ARDS patients [9].

Besides the ventilator management, several trials demonstrated benefits of conservative fluid management in patients with ARDS [10, 11, 12, 13]. The Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) demonstrated that a conservative fluid management strategy improved oxygenation, shortened duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and ICU stay without a risk of nonpulmonary organ failure in ARDS patients [10]. However, it did not show a mortality benefit and potentially increased a risk of long-term cognitive impairment [14].

Epidemiological studies of the practice and outcomes of ARDS were mostly conducted in high-income countries, and the data in low- to middle-income countries were still limited. Moreover, some studies such as LUNG SAFE study were not focused on ARDS patients [15]. We hypothesized that routine clinical practice and outcomes of ARDS in our hospital might be different from the previous reported data from developed countries due to limited ICU resource and shortage of health care personnel. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of ARDS patients, associated factors predicting outcomes, and current physicians’ practice in our medical ICUs.

Materials and methods

Study design

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of clinical outcomes of ARDS patients and physicians’ practice in the medical ICUs at tertiary referral university teaching hospital. We included all ARDS patients admitted in the medical ICUs from September 2010 to September 2014. The patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code: J80 (ARDS) and Diagnosis and Procedure Codes (ICD-9-CM) codes: 997x, 96.7. The data were collected from inpatient medical records. Only patients with fulfilled ARDS criteria (Berlin definition) were reviewed and analyzed. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, for authorization for medical record review (approval certificate no. 457/59). The clinical trial registration number is TCTR20180212002.

Eligibility criteria

ARDS patients admitted in medical ICUs at tertiary referral university teaching hospital with 14 beds in ICU between September 2010 and September 2014, using the raw data that made up the various components of the Berlin ARDS definition [3].

Statistical analyses

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) was determined at the onset of ARDS. Other recorded variables included age, sex, etiology, blood gas analysis, ventilator management, and clinical outcomes of ARDS. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were 7-day mortality, and other clinical outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of MV, and ventilator management.

SPSS (versions 22) was used to analyze the data, using odds ratio (OR), P-value, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Univariate and multivariate analyses (using variables with P < 0.2 in univariate analysis) for 7- and 28-day mortalities were performed using a binary logistic regression model.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 266 of 4,090 (6.5%) patients admitted in our medical ICUs met the Berlin criteria for ARDS diagnosis. Approximately 11.7%, 44.4%, and 44.0% of the patients fulfilled mild, moderate, and severe ARDS criteria, respectively. The severity of ARDS correlated with APACHE II score (r² = 0.235, P < 0.001). Demographic data of the patients are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of enrolled patients

	Overall	Mild ARDS	Moderate ARDS	Severe ARDS
N (%)	266 (100.0%)	31 (11.7%)	118 (44.4%)	117 (44.0%)
Age (years), mean ± SD	54.81 ± 18.66	48.84 ± 21.40	53.67 ± 18.64	57.54 ± 17.56
Gender, n (%)
Male	153 (57.5%)	16 (51.6%)	66 (55.9%)	71 (60.7%)
Female	113 (42.5%)	15 (48.4%)	52 (44.1%)	46 (39.3%)
BMI (kg/m²), mean ± SD	22.21 ± 4.44	21.91 ± 3.59	21.96 ± 3.97	22.56 ± 5.11
Etiology of ARDS (%)
Pneumonia	217 (81.6%)	26 (83.9%)	100 (84.7%)	91 (77.8%)
Sepsis	25 (9.4%)	4 (12.9%)	6 (5.1%)	15 (12.8%)
HLH	3 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)	1 (0.9%)
Pneumonitis	10 (3.8%)	1 (3.2%)	4 (3.4%)	5 (4.3%)
Multiple factors	6 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	5 (4.2%)	1 (0.9%)
Unspecified cause	2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.9%)
Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage	3 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.1%)
APACHE II median (25%, 75% quartile)	26 (22, 31)	23.16 (19, 27)	25.09 (21, 29)	27.69 (23, 32)
PaO₂/FiO₂, day 1, mean ± SD	122.40 ± 58.64	237.88 ± 53.81	138.96 ± 28.08	75.29 ± 18.04
Initial mode (%)
PCV	233 (87.6%)	22 (71%)	105 (89%)	106 (90.6%)
VCV	5 (1.9%)	1 (3.2%)	2 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)
PSV	14 (5.3%)	4 (12.9%)	5 (4.2%)	5 (4.3%)
SIMV	2 (0.8%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (0.8%)	0 (0%)
NIV	7 (2.6%)	2 (6.5%)	1 (0.8%)	4 (3.4%)
Bird mark 7	4 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	4 (3.4%)	0 (0%)
Nasal high flow	1 (0.4%)	1 (3.2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Adjunctive interventions (%)
APRV	15 (5.6%)	1 (3.2%)	4 (3.4%)	10 (8.5%)
HFOV	4 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.5%)	1 (0.9%)
Prone	10 (3.8%)	0 (0%)	5 (4.2%)	5 (4.3%)
Recruitment maneuver	128 (48.1%)	10 (32.3%)	58 (49.1%)	60 (51.3%)
PIP in PCV, day 1,	31 ± 6	27 ± 5	31 ± 6	32 ± 6
mean ± SD (cm H₂O)
TV/kg IBW day 1,	8.56 ± 2.48	8.71 ± 2.22	8.45 ± 2.56	8.64 ± 2.47
mean ± SD (mL/kg IBW)
PEEP, day 1,	10 ± 4	7 ± 3	10 ± 4	12 ± 5
mean ± SD (cm HO) ₂
Neuromuscular blockade use (%)	94 (35.3%)	7 (22.6%)	46 (39%)	41 (35%)
Sedative drugs (%)	229 (86.1%)	25 (80.6%)	102 (86.4%)	102 (87.2%)
Morphine	30 (11.3%)	1 (3.2%)	11 (9.3%)	18 (15.4%)
Fentanyl	194 (72.9%)	22 (71.0%)	86 (72.9%)	86 (73.5%)
Midazolam	197 (74.0%)	20 (64.5%)	87 (73.7%)	90 (76.9%)
Propofol	45 (16.9%)	7 (22.3%)	19 (16.1%)	19 (16.2%)
I/O balance, day 1,	2,484.94 ± 2,406.92	2,221.45 ± 2,202.28	2,161.26 ± 2,145.60	2,881.19 ± 2,694.55
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Total I/O balance in 3 days,	5,029.31 ± 4,550	3,760 ± 3,370	4,370 ± 4,306	6,037 ± 4,892
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Total I/O balance in 7 days,	6,634.97 ± 6,718.06	4,615.92 ± 6,327.18	5,771.69 ± 6,947.38	8,052.71 ± 6,337.84
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Enteral calories (kcal/day), AVG in	673.75 ± 546.29	651.57 ± 590.71	724.63 ± 533.06	628.30 ± 547.78
7 days, mean ± SD
Ventilator day (days), mean ± SD	16.46 ± 20.11	24.77 ± 30.88	16.61 ± 17.38	14.11 ± 20.11
Hospital LOS (days), mean ± SD	27.1 ± 26.47	34.26 ± 33.60	29.63 ± 25.01	22.65 ± 25.26
7-day mortality, n (%)	83 (31.1)	4 (12.9)	30 (25.4)	49 (41.9)
28-day mortality, n (%)	184 (69.2)	16 (51.6)	82 (69.5)	86 (73.5)

APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; APRV, airway pressure release ventilation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; AVG, average; BMI, body mass index; HFOV, high-frequency oscillation ventilation; HLH, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; IBW, ideal body weight; I/O, intake/output; LOS, length of stay; NIV, noninvasive ventilation; PaO₂/FiO₂, the ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen; PCV, pressure-controlled ventilation; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; PIP, peak inspiratory pressure; PSV, pressure support ventilation; SIMV, simultaneous invasive mechanical ventilation; VCV, volume-controlled ventilation; TV, tidal volume

The majority of the ARDS patients had pneumonia and were assisted with pressure-controlled ventilation with the mean peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and PEEP on the first day of MV of 31 ± 6 and 10 ± 4 cm H₂O, respectively. The plateau pressure (Pplat) was recorded in only 4.1% of the patients. The mean TV on the first day was 8.56 ± 2.48 mL/kg ideal body weight (IBW), and the average TV during the first 3 days of MV was 8.81 ± 2.39 mL/kg IBW. Approximately 55.4% of the patients had TV on the first day of MV of >8 mL/kg IBW and 60.9% of the patients had average TV during the first 3 days of MV of >8 mL/kg IBW.

Neuromuscular blockades and sedative drugs were prescribed to 35.3% and 86.09% of the patients, respectively. Adjunctive interventions including prone position, recruitment maneuver, and rescued modes such as airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and HFOV were applied to patients with moderate and severe ARDS (Table 1). Noticeably, recruitment maneuver was performed in a half of the patients, especially in the patients with moderate to severe ARDS. However, the incidence of pneumothorax was not different between the patients who received recruitment maneuver (79.7%) and who did not receive recruitment maneuver (82%).

Overall, the crude 7-day mortality was 31.1%, associated with age, ARDS severity, APACHE II score, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on day 1, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during the first 3 days, fluid balance on day 1 and cumulative fluid balance during the first 3 and 7 days, and average daily calories during the first week (Table 2). The crude 28-day mortality was 68.9%, associated with age, ARDS severity, APACHE II score, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on day 1, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during the first 3 days, TV/kg IBW on day 1, PIP on day 1, neuromuscular blockade use, fluid balance on day 1 and cumulative fluid balance during the first 3 and 7 days, and average daily calories during the first week (Table 2). After adjusting for confounding factors, the mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during the first 3 days, cumulative fluid balance on day 3, and average daily calories during the first week were independent predictors for 7-day mortality, whereas APACHE II score, fluid balance on day 1, cumulative fluid balance during the first 7 days, and average daily calories during the first week were independent predictors for 28-day mortality (Table 3). Furthermore, the patients who received average daily calories during the first week of <60% of estimated daily energy requirement had a greater risk of death (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.79–6.01, P < 0.001). Moreover, interestingly, the risk of death within 28 days increased with increasing 7-day cumulative fluid balance as shown in Figure 1.

Table 2

Univariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Univariate analysis	7-day mortality			28-day mortality
	Crude HR	95% CI	P	Crude HR	95% CI	P
Age (years)	1.015	1.001–1.030	0.04	1.023	1.009–1.038	<0.01*
Gender
Male (%)	1			1
Female (%)	0.742	0.436–1.262	0.27	0.789	0.468–1.333	0.38
BMI	0.994	0.930–1.063	0.87	0.967	0.906–1.031	0.31
ARDS severity
Mild	1			1
Moderate	2.301	0.744–7.115	0.15	2.135	0.954–4.781	0.07
Severe	4.684	1.599–14.795	<0.01*	2.601	1.151–5.878	0.02*
APACHE II	1.108	1.060–1.159	<0.01*	1.101	1.055–1.150	<0.01*
PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, day 1	0.992	0.987–0.997	<0.01*	0.997	0.993–1.001	0.18
Mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio	0.99	0.980–0.992	<0.01*	0.994	0.990–0.998	<0.01*
TV/kg IBW, day 1	0.996	0.883–1.124	0.95	0.914	0.810–1.031	0.14
Mean TV/kg IBW	0.924	0.801–1.067	0.28	0.917	0.802–1.048	0.20
PEEP, day 1	1.006	0.948–1.067	0.85	0.966	0.911–1.024	0.25
Mean PEEP	1.030	0.965–1.100	0.37	0.994	0.931–1.062	0.86
PIP, day 1	1.061	1.004–1.121	0.04	1.040	0.983–1.101	0.17
Recruitment maneuver	0.910	0.542–1.529	0.77	1.312	0.778–2.211	0.31
Pneumothorax	0.478	0.226–1.008	0.05	1.079	0.553–2.104	0.82
Neuromuscular blockade	0.718	0.412–1.252	0.22	1.471	0.840–2.578	0.18
I/O balance, day 1 (L/day)	1.325	1.175–1.495	<0.01*	1.200	1.063–1.354	<0.01*
Total I/O balance in 3 days (L/day)	1.229	1.142–1.324	<0.01*	1.137	1.066–1.212	<0.01*
Total I/O balance in 7 days (L/day)	1.112	1.071–1.176	<0.01*	1.128	1.077–1.181	<0.01*
7-day AVG enteral calories (kcal/day)	0.998	0.997–0.999	<0.01*	0.999	0.998–0.999	<0.01*

APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; AVG, average; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IBW, ideal body weight; I/O, intake/output; mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in the first 3 days; mean PEEP, mean PEEP in the first 3 days; mean TV/kg IBW, mean TV/kg IBW in the first 3 days; PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, the ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; PIP, peak inspiratory pressure; TV, tidal volume

*Statistical significance

The increasing OR of 28-day mortality in patients who had more positive 7-day cumulative fluid balance. OR, odds ratio

Table 3

Multivariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Multivariate analysis	7-day mortality^†			28-day mortality^‡
	Adjusted HR	95% CI	P	Adjusted HR	95% CI	P
Age (years)	1.004	0.985–1.023	0.70	1.002	0.979–1.027	0.63
ARDS severity
Mild	1			1
Moderate	1.608	0.308–8.388	0.57	7.65	0.878–66.662	0.66
Severe	1.835	0.204–16.539	0.59	14.00	0.715–274.194	0.82
APACHE II	1.050	0.995–1.108	0.94	1.151	1.073–1.235	<0.01*
PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, day 1	1.003	0.995–1.011	0.50	1.003	0.994–1.013	0.46
Mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio	0.988	0.981–0.994	<0.01*	0.997	0.989–1.006	0.55
TV/kg IBW, day 1				1.001	0.997–1.004	0.68
PIP, day 1				1.037	0.966–1.114	0.32
Neuromuscular blockade				1.218	0.524–2.832	0.65
I/O balance, day 1	0.984	0.818–1.182	0.86	0.816	0.666–0.998	0.048*
(L/day)
Total I/O balance in 3 days (L/day)	1.192	1.102–1.289	<0.01*	0.969	0.802–1.169	0.74
Total I/O balance in 7 days (L/day)	1.061	0.979–1.150	0.15	1.103	1.026–1.186	<0.01*
7-day AVG enteral calories (kcal/day)	0.998	0.997–0.999	<0.01*	0.999	0.998–1	<0.01*

APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; AVG, average; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IBW, ideal body weight; I/O, intake/output; mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in the first 3 days; PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, the ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; PIP, peak inspiratory pressure; TV, tidal volume

^†Adjusted age, ARDS severity, APACHE II score, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during the first 3 days, fluid balance on day 1 and cumulative fluid balance during the first 3 and 7 days, and AVG daily calories during the first week for 7-day morality

^‡Adjusted age, ARDS severity, APACHE II score, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on day 1, mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during the first 3 days, TV/kg IBW on day 1, PIP on day 1, neuromuscular blockade use, fluid balance on day 1 and cumulative fluid balance during the first 3 and 7 days, and AVG daily calories during the first week for 28-day mortality

*Statistical significance

Discussion

This study demonstrated that the 28-day mortality of the ARDS patients admitted in our medical ICUs was high, compared with the mortalities in other studies [15, 16, 17, 18, 19] (Table 4). We postulated that the higher mortality rate resulted from limited ICU beds, delayed ICU admission, delayed sedative and neuromuscular blockade administration, and shortage of medical staff. Our mortality rate tended to be increasing with the greater ARDS severity; however, it was not significant. It might be explained that there were multiple factors affecting the mortality rate such as ventilator-induced lung injury, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and positive cumulative fluid balance. Noticeably, 42.3% of our patients received TV greater than 8 mL/kg IBW on the first day, compared with 30% of the patients in the PRoVENT study [19]. Moreover, there were limited data of the Pplat in our study (4%), compared with 17.2% in ALIEN [18], 40% in LUNG SAFE [15], 41% in PRoVENT [19], and 90.7% in APRONET [20]. These findings might indicate that the physicians less concerned about ventilator-induced lung injury. Furthermore, the prevalence of prone position in our severe ARDS patients was only 4%, compared with 16% in LUNG SAFE [15] and 32.9% in APRONET [20]. Prone position was infrequently used in our study because of different study periods. The PROSEVA [6] reported the mortality benefit of prone position in 2013, but we retrospectively reviewed the data between 2010 and 2014. In addition, the prevalence of the use of neuromuscular blocking agent was 35.3% in our study, higher than LUNG SAFE (21.7%) [15] due to the higher proportion of severe ARDS patients in our study. Despite the greater use of neuromuscular blockade, the mortality rate was higher, which might be from inadequate doses of this medication and no ventilator asynchrony monitoring. Recruitment maneuver was performed to 48.12% of the patients, which was quite high, compared with 20.9% in the LUNG SAFE [15]. Despite the fact that the recruitment maneuver potentially increased the risk of barotrauma and death [21, 22], our study did not show the association between the procedure and the complications. Finally, similar to other studies, there were low prevalence of HFOV, APRV, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use, which less affected the ARDS outcomes [7, 8, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29].

Table 4

Comparison of 28-day mortality of ARDS patients and factors possibly associated with mortality between our study and other studies including ALIEN, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and APRONET

	Our study	ALIEN	LUNG SAFE	PRoVENT	APRONET
		[18]	[15]	[19]	[20]
Study period	2010–2014	2008–2009	2014	2014–2015	2016–2017
28-day mortality
All severity of ARDS	69.2%	42.7%	34.8%	29%	NA
Mild ARDS	51.6%	NA	29.6%	NA	NA
Moderate ARDS	69.5%	NA	35.2%	NA	NA
Severe ARDS	73.5%	NA	40.9%	NA	NA
Factors
TV (mL/kg IBW) on day 1	8.56 ± 2.48	7.2 ± 1.1	7.6	7.6	6.7
Percentage of patients with TV >8 mL/kg IBW on day 1	42.3%	NA	NA	30%	NA
Percentage of Pplat measurement	4%	17.2%	40%	41%	90.7%
Percentage of patients with prone position (in severe ARDS)	4%	NA	16%	NA	32.9%
Percentage of patients receiving neuromuscular blockage	35.3%	NA	21.7%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with recruitment maneuver	48.1%	NA	20.9%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with ECMO	0%	NA	3.2%	NA	1.9%
Percentage of patients with HFOV	1.5%	NA	1.2%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with APRV	5.63%	NA	NA	NA	NA

APRV, airway pressure release ventilation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; HFOV, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation; IBW, ideal body weight; Pplat, plateau pressure; TV, tidal volume; NA, not available

According to the ventilator complications, barotrauma was not different between ARDS survivors and non-survivors. Nevertheless, ventilator-associated pneumonia was higher in the non-survivors group (18.4% vs 13.4%).

Besides, most of the patients had positive cumulative fluid balance, which contributed to the significantly greater mortality in our study (Figure 1). Compared with FACTT [10], our ARDS patients had cumulative fluid balance over 7 days close to the fluid balance of the patients in the liberal fluid management group (6,634.97 ± 6,718.06 mL in our study vs 6,992 ± 502 in liberal FACTT), who had worse clinical outcomes, including less ventilator-free days and deteriorated oxygenation index and lung injury score. Nevertheless, FACTT did not demonstrate the mortality risk from liberal fluid management. The different findings might be explained by the fact that there were limited data of hemodynamic status, which possibly confounded to the significantly higher mortality rate in our study.

Furthermore, our study showed that the patients receiving daily calories less than 60% of the estimated daily caloric need during the first week had higher mortality. This result was different from the findings in the EDEN study [30], which demonstrated that initial trophic enteral feeding for up to 6 days in patients with acute lung injury resulted in similar ventilator-free days, 60-day mortality, and infectious complications, compared with full enteral feeding. It might be explained that our patients with lower caloric intake possibly had more severe conditions such as hemodynamic instability or severe lung injury treated with prone position, which had an impact on mortality outcome.

Our study had limitations. Due to the retrospective design, the information was obtained from the recorded documents. Thus, there were some missing data such as height, body weight, Pplat, and driving pressure. In addition, there might be uncontrolled factors confounding to the mortality rate such as inadequate antibiotics and source control, inappropriate resuscitation of shock, or the different severity of comorbidities.

Conclusion

The 28-day mortality of ARDS was high. In addition, the average TV and fluid balance were greater than the protective limits. These findings indicated the potential improvement of ARDS outcomes in our hospital. The educational program focusing on ARDS management, follow-up, and feedback activities should be provided to our medical personnel.

Figures et tableaux

Characteristics of enrolled patients

	Overall	Mild ARDS	Moderate ARDS	Severe ARDS
N (%)	266 (100.0%)	31 (11.7%)	118 (44.4%)	117 (44.0%)
Age (years), mean ± SD	54.81 ± 18.66	48.84 ± 21.40	53.67 ± 18.64	57.54 ± 17.56
Gender, n (%)
Male	153 (57.5%)	16 (51.6%)	66 (55.9%)	71 (60.7%)
Female	113 (42.5%)	15 (48.4%)	52 (44.1%)	46 (39.3%)
BMI (kg/m²), mean ± SD	22.21 ± 4.44	21.91 ± 3.59	21.96 ± 3.97	22.56 ± 5.11
Etiology of ARDS (%)
Pneumonia	217 (81.6%)	26 (83.9%)	100 (84.7%)	91 (77.8%)
Sepsis	25 (9.4%)	4 (12.9%)	6 (5.1%)	15 (12.8%)
HLH	3 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)	1 (0.9%)
Pneumonitis	10 (3.8%)	1 (3.2%)	4 (3.4%)	5 (4.3%)
Multiple factors	6 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	5 (4.2%)	1 (0.9%)
Unspecified cause	2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.9%)
Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage	3 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.1%)
APACHE II median (25%, 75% quartile)	26 (22, 31)	23.16 (19, 27)	25.09 (21, 29)	27.69 (23, 32)
PaO₂/FiO₂, day 1, mean ± SD	122.40 ± 58.64	237.88 ± 53.81	138.96 ± 28.08	75.29 ± 18.04
Initial mode (%)
PCV	233 (87.6%)	22 (71%)	105 (89%)	106 (90.6%)
VCV	5 (1.9%)	1 (3.2%)	2 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)
PSV	14 (5.3%)	4 (12.9%)	5 (4.2%)	5 (4.3%)
SIMV	2 (0.8%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (0.8%)	0 (0%)
NIV	7 (2.6%)	2 (6.5%)	1 (0.8%)	4 (3.4%)
Bird mark 7	4 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	4 (3.4%)	0 (0%)
Nasal high flow	1 (0.4%)	1 (3.2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Adjunctive interventions (%)
APRV	15 (5.6%)	1 (3.2%)	4 (3.4%)	10 (8.5%)
HFOV	4 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.5%)	1 (0.9%)
Prone	10 (3.8%)	0 (0%)	5 (4.2%)	5 (4.3%)
Recruitment maneuver	128 (48.1%)	10 (32.3%)	58 (49.1%)	60 (51.3%)
PIP in PCV, day 1,	31 ± 6	27 ± 5	31 ± 6	32 ± 6
mean ± SD (cm H₂O)
TV/kg IBW day 1,	8.56 ± 2.48	8.71 ± 2.22	8.45 ± 2.56	8.64 ± 2.47
mean ± SD (mL/kg IBW)
PEEP, day 1,	10 ± 4	7 ± 3	10 ± 4	12 ± 5
mean ± SD (cm HO) ₂
Neuromuscular blockade use (%)	94 (35.3%)	7 (22.6%)	46 (39%)	41 (35%)
Sedative drugs (%)	229 (86.1%)	25 (80.6%)	102 (86.4%)	102 (87.2%)
Morphine	30 (11.3%)	1 (3.2%)	11 (9.3%)	18 (15.4%)
Fentanyl	194 (72.9%)	22 (71.0%)	86 (72.9%)	86 (73.5%)
Midazolam	197 (74.0%)	20 (64.5%)	87 (73.7%)	90 (76.9%)
Propofol	45 (16.9%)	7 (22.3%)	19 (16.1%)	19 (16.2%)
I/O balance, day 1,	2,484.94 ± 2,406.92	2,221.45 ± 2,202.28	2,161.26 ± 2,145.60	2,881.19 ± 2,694.55
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Total I/O balance in 3 days,	5,029.31 ± 4,550	3,760 ± 3,370	4,370 ± 4,306	6,037 ± 4,892
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Total I/O balance in 7 days,	6,634.97 ± 6,718.06	4,615.92 ± 6,327.18	5,771.69 ± 6,947.38	8,052.71 ± 6,337.84
mean ± SD (mL/day)
Enteral calories (kcal/day), AVG in	673.75 ± 546.29	651.57 ± 590.71	724.63 ± 533.06	628.30 ± 547.78
7 days, mean ± SD
Ventilator day (days), mean ± SD	16.46 ± 20.11	24.77 ± 30.88	16.61 ± 17.38	14.11 ± 20.11
Hospital LOS (days), mean ± SD	27.1 ± 26.47	34.26 ± 33.60	29.63 ± 25.01	22.65 ± 25.26
7-day mortality, n (%)	83 (31.1)	4 (12.9)	30 (25.4)	49 (41.9)
28-day mortality, n (%)	184 (69.2)	16 (51.6)	82 (69.5)	86 (73.5)

Comparison of 28-day mortality of ARDS patients and factors possibly associated with mortality between our study and other studies including ALIEN, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and APRONET

	Our study	ALIEN	LUNG SAFE	PRoVENT	APRONET
		[18]	[15]	[19]	[20]
Study period	2010–2014	2008–2009	2014	2014–2015	2016–2017
28-day mortality
All severity of ARDS	69.2%	42.7%	34.8%	29%	NA
Mild ARDS	51.6%	NA	29.6%	NA	NA
Moderate ARDS	69.5%	NA	35.2%	NA	NA
Severe ARDS	73.5%	NA	40.9%	NA	NA
Factors
TV (mL/kg IBW) on day 1	8.56 ± 2.48	7.2 ± 1.1	7.6	7.6	6.7
Percentage of patients with TV >8 mL/kg IBW on day 1	42.3%	NA	NA	30%	NA
Percentage of Pplat measurement	4%	17.2%	40%	41%	90.7%
Percentage of patients with prone position (in severe ARDS)	4%	NA	16%	NA	32.9%
Percentage of patients receiving neuromuscular blockage	35.3%	NA	21.7%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with recruitment maneuver	48.1%	NA	20.9%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with ECMO	0%	NA	3.2%	NA	1.9%
Percentage of patients with HFOV	1.5%	NA	1.2%	NA	NA
Percentage of patients with APRV	5.63%	NA	NA	NA	NA

Univariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Univariate analysis	7-day mortality			28-day mortality
	Crude HR	95% CI	P	Crude HR	95% CI	P
Age (years)	1.015	1.001–1.030	0.04	1.023	1.009–1.038	<0.01*
Gender
Male (%)	1			1
Female (%)	0.742	0.436–1.262	0.27	0.789	0.468–1.333	0.38
BMI	0.994	0.930–1.063	0.87	0.967	0.906–1.031	0.31
ARDS severity
Mild	1			1
Moderate	2.301	0.744–7.115	0.15	2.135	0.954–4.781	0.07
Severe	4.684	1.599–14.795	<0.01*	2.601	1.151–5.878	0.02*
APACHE II	1.108	1.060–1.159	<0.01*	1.101	1.055–1.150	<0.01*
PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, day 1	0.992	0.987–0.997	<0.01*	0.997	0.993–1.001	0.18
Mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio	0.99	0.980–0.992	<0.01*	0.994	0.990–0.998	<0.01*
TV/kg IBW, day 1	0.996	0.883–1.124	0.95	0.914	0.810–1.031	0.14
Mean TV/kg IBW	0.924	0.801–1.067	0.28	0.917	0.802–1.048	0.20
PEEP, day 1	1.006	0.948–1.067	0.85	0.966	0.911–1.024	0.25
Mean PEEP	1.030	0.965–1.100	0.37	0.994	0.931–1.062	0.86
PIP, day 1	1.061	1.004–1.121	0.04	1.040	0.983–1.101	0.17
Recruitment maneuver	0.910	0.542–1.529	0.77	1.312	0.778–2.211	0.31
Pneumothorax	0.478	0.226–1.008	0.05	1.079	0.553–2.104	0.82
Neuromuscular blockade	0.718	0.412–1.252	0.22	1.471	0.840–2.578	0.18
I/O balance, day 1 (L/day)	1.325	1.175–1.495	<0.01*	1.200	1.063–1.354	<0.01*
Total I/O balance in 3 days (L/day)	1.229	1.142–1.324	<0.01*	1.137	1.066–1.212	<0.01*
Total I/O balance in 7 days (L/day)	1.112	1.071–1.176	<0.01*	1.128	1.077–1.181	<0.01*
7-day AVG enteral calories (kcal/day)	0.998	0.997–0.999	<0.01*	0.999	0.998–0.999	<0.01*

Multivariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Multivariate analysis	7-day mortality^†			28-day mortality^‡
	Adjusted HR	95% CI	P	Adjusted HR	95% CI	P
Age (years)	1.004	0.985–1.023	0.70	1.002	0.979–1.027	0.63
ARDS severity
Mild	1			1
Moderate	1.608	0.308–8.388	0.57	7.65	0.878–66.662	0.66
Severe	1.835	0.204–16.539	0.59	14.00	0.715–274.194	0.82
APACHE II	1.050	0.995–1.108	0.94	1.151	1.073–1.235	<0.01*
PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, day 1	1.003	0.995–1.011	0.50	1.003	0.994–1.013	0.46
Mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio	0.988	0.981–0.994	<0.01*	0.997	0.989–1.006	0.55
TV/kg IBW, day 1				1.001	0.997–1.004	0.68
PIP, day 1				1.037	0.966–1.114	0.32
Neuromuscular blockade				1.218	0.524–2.832	0.65
I/O balance, day 1	0.984	0.818–1.182	0.86	0.816	0.666–0.998	0.048*
(L/day)
Total I/O balance in 3 days (L/day)	1.192	1.102–1.289	<0.01*	0.969	0.802–1.169	0.74
Total I/O balance in 7 days (L/day)	1.061	0.979–1.150	0.15	1.103	1.026–1.186	<0.01*
7-day AVG enteral calories (kcal/day)	0.998	0.997–0.999	<0.01*	0.999	0.998–1	<0.01*

Références

[1]Ashbaugh DG, Bigelow DB, Petty TL, Levine BE. Acute respiratory distress in adults. Lancet. 1967; 2:319–23.AshbaughDGBigelowDBPettyTLLevineBEAcute respiratory distress in adultsLancet196723192310.1016/S0140-6736(67)90168-7Search in Google Scholar

[2]Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, et al. The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994; 149:818–24.BernardGRArtigasABrighamKLCarletJFalkeKHudsonLet alThe American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordinationAm J Respir Crit Care Med19941498182410.1164/ajrccm.149.3.75097067509706Search in Google Scholar

[3]ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwall E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA. 2012; 307:2526–33.ARDS Definition Task ForceRanieriVMRubenfeldGDThompsonBTFergusonNDCaldwallEet alAcute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definitionJAMA2012307252633Search in Google Scholar

[4]Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:1301–8.AcuteRespiratory Distress Syndrome NetworkBrowerRGMatthayMAMorrisASchoenfeldDThompsonBTet alVentilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome NetworkN Engl J Med20003421301810.1056/NEJM20000504342180110793162Search in Google Scholar

[5]Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:1107–16.PapazianLForelJMGacouinAPenot-RagonCPerrinGLoundouAet alNeuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndromeN Engl J Med201036311071610.1056/NEJMoa100537220843245Search in Google Scholar

[6]Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:2159–68.GuerinCReignierJRichardJCBeuretPGacouinABoulainTet alProne positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndromeN Engl J Med201336821596810.1056/NEJMoa121410323688302Search in Google Scholar

[7]Ferguson ND, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Mehta S, Hand L, Austin P, et al. High-frequency oscillation in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:795–805.FergusonNDCookDJGuyattGHMehtaSHandLAustinPet alHigh-frequency oscillation in early acute respiratory distress syndromeN Engl J Med201336879580510.1056/NEJMoa121555423339639Search in Google Scholar

[8]Young D, Lamb SE, Shah S, MacKenzie I, Tunnicliffe W, Lall R, et al. High-frequency oscillation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:806–13.YoungDLambSEShahSMacKenzieITunnicliffeWLallRet alHigh-frequency oscillation for acute respiratory distress syndromeN Engl J Med20133688061310.1056/NEJMoa121571623339638Search in Google Scholar

[9]Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators, Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, Paisani DM, Damiani LP, et al. Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017; 318:1335–45.Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) InvestigatorsCavalcantiABSuzumuraÉALaranjeiraLNPaisaniDMDamianiLPet alEffect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trialJAMA201731813354510.1001/jama.2017.14171571048428973363Search in Google Scholar

[10]Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, Hayden D, deBoisblanc B, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:2564–75.WiedemannHPWheelerAPBernardGRThompsonBTHaydenDdeBoisblancBet alComparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injuryN Engl J Med200635425647510.1016/j.jvs.2006.08.053Search in Google Scholar

[11]Sakr Y, Vincent JL, Reinhart K, Groeneveld J, Michalopoulos A, Sprung CL, et al. High tidal volume and positive fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injury. Chest. 2005; 128:3098–108.SakrYVincentJLReinhartKGroeneveldJMichalopoulosASprungCLet alHigh tidal volume and positive fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injuryChest2005128309810810.1378/chest.128.5.309816304249Search in Google Scholar

[12]Schuller D, Mitchell JP, Calandrino FS, Schuster DP. Fluid balance during pulmonary edema. Is fluid gain a marker or a cause of poor outcome? Chest. 1991; 100:1068–75.SchullerDMitchellJPCalandrinoFSSchusterDPFluid balance during pulmonary edema. Is fluid gain a marker or a cause of poor outcome?Chest199110010687510.1378/chest.100.4.10681914560Search in Google Scholar

[13]Humphrey H, Hall J, Sznajder I, Silverstein M, Wood L. Improved survival in ARDS patients associated with a reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. Chest. 1990; 97:1176–80.HumphreyHHallJSznajderISilversteinMWoodLImproved survival in ARDS patients associated with a reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressureChest19909711768010.1378/chest.97.5.11762100979Search in Google Scholar

[14]Mikkelsen ME, Christie JD, Lanken PN, Biester RC, Thompson BT, Bellamy SL, et al. The adult respiratory distress syndrome cognitive outcomes study: long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:1307–15.MikkelsenMEChristieJDLankenPNBiesterRCThompsonBTBellamySLet alThe adult respiratory distress syndrome cognitive outcomes study: long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injuryAm J Respir Crit Care Med201218513071510.1164/rccm.201111-2025OC338123422492988Search in Google Scholar

[15]Giacomo B, John G, Tai P, Eddy F, Laurent B, Andres E, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016; 315:788–800.GiacomoBJohnGTaiPEddyFLaurentBAndresEet alEpidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countriesJAMA201631578880010.1001/jama.2016.029126903337Search in Google Scholar

[16]Phua J, Badia JR, Adhikari NK, Friedrich JO, Fowler RA, Singh JM, et al. Has mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome decreased over time?: a systematic review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009; 179:220–7.PhuaJBadiaJRAdhikariNKFriedrichJOFowlerRASinghJMet alHas mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome decreased over time?: a systematic reviewAm J Respir Crit Care Med2009179220710.1164/rccm.200805-722OC19011152Search in Google Scholar

[17]Zambon M, Vincent JL. Mortality rates for patients with acute lung injury/ARDS have decreased over time. Chest. 2008; 133:1120–7.ZambonMVincentJLMortality rates for patients with acute lung injury/ARDS have decreased over timeChest20081331120710.1378/chest.07-213418263687Search in Google Scholar

[18]Jesus V, Jesus B, Jose MA, Antonio S, Luis B, Alfonso A, et al. The ALIEN study: incidence and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the era of lung protective ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2011; 37:1932–41.JesusVJesusBJoseMAAntonioSLuisBAlfonsoAet alThe ALIEN study: incidence and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the era of lung protective ventilationIntensive Care Med20113719324110.1007/s00134-011-2380-421997128Search in Google Scholar

[19]Ary SN, Carmen S, Fabienne D, Antonio A, Jaume C, Rogier M, et al. Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study. Lancet. 2016; 4:882–93.ArySNCarmenSFabienneDAntonioAJaumeCRogierMet alEpidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective studyLancet2016488293Search in Google Scholar

[20]Guerin C, Beuret P, Constantin JM, Belani G, Garcia-Olivares P, Roca O, et al. A prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) study. Intensive Care Med. 2018; 44:22–37.GuerinCBeuretPConstantinJMBelaniGGarcia-OlivaresPRocaOet alA prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) studyIntensive Care Med201844223710.1007/s00134-017-4996-529218379Search in Google Scholar

[21]Huh JW, Jung H, Choi HS, Hong SB, Lim CM, Koh Y. Efficacy of positive end-expiratory pressure titration after the alveolar recruitment manoeuvre in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2009; 13:R22.HuhJWJungHChoiHSHongSBLimCMKohYEfficacy of positive end-expiratory pressure titration after the alveolar recruitment manoeuvre in patients with acute respiratory distress syndromeCrit Care200913R2210.1186/cc7725268814019239703Search in Google Scholar

[22]Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Slutsky AS, Arabi YM, Cooper DJ, et al. Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008; 299:637–45.MeadeMOCookDJGuyattGHSlutskyASArabiYMCooperDJet alVentilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trialJAMA20082996374510.1001/jama.299.6.63718270352Search in Google Scholar

[23]Li JQ, Li N, Han GJ, Pan CG, Zhang YH, Shi XZ, et al. Clinical research about airway pressure release ventilation for moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016; 20:2634–41.LiJQLiNHanGJPanCGZhangYHShiXZet alClinical research about airway pressure release ventilation for moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndromeEur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci201620263441Search in Google Scholar

[24]Lim J, Litton E, Robinson H, Das Gupta M. Characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective observational study. J Crit Care. 2016; 34:154–9.LimJLittonERobinsonHDas GuptaMCharacteristics and outcomes of patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective observational studyJ Crit Care201634154910.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.002Search in Google Scholar

[25]Song S, Tian H, Yang X, Hu Z. The clinical effect of airway pressure release ventilation for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2016; 28:15–21.SongSTianHYangXHuZThe clinical effect of airway pressure release ventilation for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndromeZhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue2016281521Search in Google Scholar

[26]Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK. Effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on clinical outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2008; 178:1153–61.SudSSudMFriedrichJOAdhikariNKEffect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on clinical outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysisCMAJ200817811536110.1503/cmaj.071802Search in Google Scholar

[27]Calfee CS, Matthay MA. Nonventilatory treatments for acute lung injury and ARDS. Chest. 2007; 131:913–20.CalfeeCSMatthayMANonventilatory treatments for acute lung injury and ARDSChest20071319132010.1378/chest.06-1743Search in Google Scholar

[28]Peek GJ, Elbourne D, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, et al. Randomised controlled trial and parallel economic evaluation of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR). Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14:1–46.PeekGJElbourneDMugfordMTiruvoipatiRWilsonAAllenEet alRandomised controlled trial and parallel economic evaluation of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR)Health Technol Assess20101414610.3310/hta14350Search in Google Scholar

[29]Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009; 374:1351–63.PeekGJMugfordMTiruvoipatiRWilsonAAllenEThalananyMMet alEfficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trialLancet200937413516310.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2Search in Google Scholar

[30]National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network, Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, Steingrub J, Hite RD, et al. Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury the EDEN randomized trial. JAMA. 2012; 307:795–803.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials NetworkRiceTWWheelerAPThompsonBTSteingrubJHiteRDet alInitial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury the EDEN randomized trialJAMA201230779580310.1164/ajrccm-conference.2012.185.1_MeetingAbstracts.A6856Search in Google Scholar

Asian Biomedicine

Clinical outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a university hospital

Natthawan Sanguanwong et
Natthawan Sanguanwong et
Napplika Kongpolprom
Napplika Kongpolprom

Publié en ligne: 24 Oct 2019

Volume & Edition: Volume 12 (2018) - Edition 6 (December 2018)

Pages: 263 - 271

Détails du journal et du numéro

Asian Biomedicine

Aperçu PDF

Article

Figure 1

Figures et tableaux

Figure 1

Characteristics of enrolled patients

Comparison of 28-day mortality of ARDS patients and factors possibly associated with mortality between our study and other studies including ALIEN, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and APRONET

Univariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Multivariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Références

Articles récents

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo

Asian Biomedicine

Clinical outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a university hospital

Natthawan Sanguanwong etNatthawan Sanguanwong etNapplika KongpolpromNapplika Kongpolprom

Publié en ligne: 24 Oct 2019

Volume & Edition: Volume 12 (2018) - Edition 6 (December 2018)

Pages: 263 - 271

Détails du journal et du numéro

Asian Biomedicine

Aperçu PDF

Article

Figure 1

Figures et tableaux

Figure 1

Characteristics of enrolled patients

Comparison of 28-day mortality of ARDS patients and factors possibly associated with mortality between our study and other studies including ALIEN, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and APRONET

Univariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Multivariate analysis for 7- and 28-day mortalities

Références

Articles récents

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo

Natthawan Sanguanwong et
Natthawan Sanguanwong et
Napplika Kongpolprom
Napplika Kongpolprom