Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
05 Jun 2013-The New England Journal of Medicine (Massachusetts Medical Society)-Vol. 368, Iss: 23, pp 2159-2168
TL;DR: In patients with severe ARDS, early application of prolonged prone-positioning sessions significantly decreased 28-day and 90-day mortality.
Abstract: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we randomly as signed 466 patients with severe ARDS to undergo prone-positioning sessions of at least 16 hours or to be left in the supine position. Severe ARDS was defined as a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 150 mm Hg, with an F io2 of at least 0.6, a positive end-expira tory pressure of at least 5 cm of water, and a tidal volume close to 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who died from any cause within 28 days after inclusion. Results A total of 237 patients were assigned to the prone group, and 229 patients were as signed to the supine group. The 28-day mortality was 16.0% in the prone group and 32.8% in the supine group (P<0.001). The hazard ratio for death with prone position ing was 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.63). Unadjusted 90-day mortal ity was 23.6% in the prone group versus 41.0% in the supine group (P<0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67). The incidence of complications did not differ significantly between the groups, except for the incidence of cardiac arrests, which was higher in the supine group. Conclusions In patients with severe ARDS, early application of prolonged prone-positioning ses sions significantly decreased 28-day and 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National 2006 and 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; PROSEVA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527813.)
Citations
More filters
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
4,303 citations
University of Milan1, University of Toronto2, St. Michael's GAA, Sligo3, Paris Diderot University4, University of Paris5, University Health Network6, St. Michael's Hospital7, Australian National University8, Uppsala University9, Queen's University Belfast10, Sapienza University of Rome11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Harvard University13, Leipzig University14
TL;DR: Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning, which indicates the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.
Abstract: IMPORTANCE Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES To evaluate intensive ...
3,259 citations
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, University of Toronto10, University of Pittsburgh11, St Thomas' Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Rowan University17, University of Mississippi18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Federal University of São Paulo22, Regions Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, University of Ottawa25, University of Sydney26, University of New South Wales27, Fujita Health University28, University of Copenhagen29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Christiana Care Health System31, Stanford University32, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology33, University of Kansas34, Harvard University35, California Pacific Medical Center36, University of Amsterdam37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Houston Methodist Hospital39
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was assembled at key international meetings (forSurviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 as discussed by the authors ).
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for
2,414 citations
TL;DR: During the first 3 weeks of the Covid-19 outbreak in the Seattle area, the most common reasons for admission to the ICU were hypoxemic respiratory failure leading to mechanical ventilation, hypotension requiring vasopressor treatment, or both.
Abstract: Background Community transmission of coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19) was detected in the state of Washington in February 2020. Methods We identified patients from nine Seattle-area hospitals w...
2,119 citations
Additional excerpts
...(%) 2/13 (15) Lowest platelet count, median (IQR) — per mm3 180,000 (109,000–257,000)...
[...]
TL;DR: The probable causes of mechanical ventilation injury and ways to prevent it are reviewed.
Abstract: Mechanical ventilation may cause injury to the ventilated lung. This article reviews the probable causes of such injury and ways to prevent it.
1,437 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.
Abstract: Background Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilation use tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml per kilogram of body weight and may cause stretch-induced lung injury in patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We therefore conducted a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods Patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial. The trial compared traditional ventilation treatment, which involved an initial tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an airway pressure measured after a 0.5-second pause at the end of inspiration (plateau pressure) of 50 cm of water or less, with ventilation with a lower tidal volume, which involved an initial tidal volume of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and a plateau pressure of 30 cm of water or less. The primary outcomes were death before a patient was discharged home and was breathing without assistance and the number of days without ventilator use from day 1 to day 28. Results The trial was stopped after the enrollment of 861 patients because mortality was lower in the group treated with lower tidal volumes than in the group treated with traditional tidal volumes (31.0 percent vs. 39.8 percent, P=0.007), and the number of days without ventilator use during the first 28 days after randomization was greater in this group (mean [+/-SD], 12+/-11 vs. 10+/-11; P=0.007). The mean tidal volumes on days 1 to 3 were 6.2+/-0.8 and 11.8+/-0.8 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight (P Conclusions In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.
11,028 citations
TL;DR: The ESICM developed a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortali ty in the critically ill patient. Emerging in the 1970s, the concept of MOF was linked to modern developments in intensive care medicine [1]. Although an uncontrolled infection can lead to MOF [2], such a phenomenon is not always found. A number of mediators and the persistence of tissue hypoxia have been incriminated in the development of MOF [3]. The gut has been cited as a possible \"moto r \" of MOF [4]. Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of MOF remains limited. Furthermore, the development of new therapeutic interventions aiming at a reduction of the incidence and severity of organ failure calls for a better definition of the severity of organ dysfunction/failure to quantify the severity of illness. Accordingly, it is important to set some simple but objective criteria to define the degree of organ dysfunction/failure. The evolution of our knowledge of organ dysfunction/failure led us to establish several principles: 1. Organ dysfunction/failure is a process rather than an event. Hence, it should be seen as a continuum and should not be described simply as \"present\" or \"absent~' Hence, the assessment should be based on a scale. 2. The time factor is fundamental for several reasons: (a) Development and similarly resolution of organ failure may take some time. Patients dying early may not have time to develop organ dysfunction/failure. (b) The time course of organ dysfunction/failure can be mult imodal during a complex clinical course, what is sometimes referred to as a \"multiple-hit\" scenario. (c) Time evaluation allows a greater understanding of the disease process as a natural process or under the influence of therapeutic interventions. The collection of data on a daily basis seems adequate. 3. The evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure should be based on a limited number of simple but objective variables that are easily and routinely measured in every institution. The collection of this information should not impose any intervention beyond what is routinely performed in every ICU. The variables used should as much as possible be independent of therapy, since therapeutic management may vary from one institution to another and even from one patient to another (Table 1). Until recently, none of the existing systems describing organ failure met these criteria, since they were based on categorial definitions or described organ failure as present or absent [5-7] . The ESICM organized a consensus meeting in Paris in October 1994 to create a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients (Fig. 1). There are two major applications of such a SOFA score: 1. To improve our Understanding of the natural history of organ dysfunction/failure and the interrelation between the failure of the various organs.
8,538 citations
TL;DR: The updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition and may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
Abstract: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P < .001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P < .001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
7,731 citations
TL;DR: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a process of nonhydrostatic pulmonary edema and hypoxemia associated with a variety of etiologies, carries a high morbidity, mortality, and financial cost.
Abstract: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a process of nonhydrostatic pulmonary edema and hypoxemia associated with a variety of etiologies, carries a high morbidity, mortality (10 to 90%), and financial cost. The reported annual incidence in the United States is 150,000 cases, but this figure has been challenged, and it may be different in Europe. Part of the reason for these uncertainties are the heterogeneity of diseases underlying ARDS and the lack of uniform definitions for ARDS. Thus, those who wish to know the true incidence and outcome of this clinical syndrome are stymied. The American-European Consensus Committee on ARDS was formed to focus on these issues and on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of the process. It was felt that international coordination between North America and Europe in clinical studies of ARDS was becoming increasingly important in order to address the recent plethora of potential therapeutic agents for the prevention and treatment of ARDS.
6,233 citations
TL;DR: The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a primary diagnosis, and is a starting point for future evaluation of the efficiency of intensive care units.
Abstract: Objective. —To develop and validate a new Simplified Acute Physiology Score, the SAPS II, from a large sample of surgical and medical patients, and to provide a method to convert the score to a probability of hospital mortality. Design and Setting. —The SAPS II and the probability of hospital mortality were developed and validated using data from consecutive admissions to 137 adult medical and/or surgical intensive care units in 12 countries. Patients. —The 13 152 patients were randomly divided into developmental (65%) and validation (35%) samples. Patients younger than 18 years, burn patients, coronary care patients, and cardiac surgery patients were excluded. Outcome Measure. —Vital status at hospital discharge. Results. —The SAPS II includes only 17 variables: 12 physiology variables, age, type of admission (scheduled surgical, unscheduled surgical, or medical), and three underlying disease variables (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, metastatic cancer, and hematologic malignancy). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the model performed well in the developmental sample and validated well in an independent sample of patients (P=.883 andP=.104 in the developmental and validation samples, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 in the developmental sample and 0.86 in the validation sample. Conclusion. —The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a primary diagnosis. This is a starting point for future evaluation of the efficiency of intensive care units. (JAMA. 1993;270:2957-2963)
5,836 citations