About: ARDS is a(n) research topic. Over the lifetime, 13273 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 435633 citation(s).
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.
30 Jan 2013-Intensive Care Medicine
Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe 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 this important group of critically ill patients.
01 May 2020-The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
TL;DR: The clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital between late December, 2019 and Jan 26, 2020 are described.
Abstract: Summary Background An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in December, 2019, in Wuhan, China. Information about critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Methods In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we enrolled 52 critically ill adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital (Wuhan, China) between late December, 2019, and Jan 26, 2020. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes were all collected. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, as of Feb 9, 2020. Secondary outcomes included incidence of SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Findings Of 710 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 52 critically ill adult patients were included. The mean age of the 52 patients was 59·7 (SD 13·3) years, 35 (67%) were men, 21 (40%) had chronic illness, 51 (98%) had fever. 32 (61·5%) patients had died at 28 days, and the median duration from admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) to death was 7 (IQR 3–11) days for non-survivors. Compared with survivors, non-survivors were older (64·6 years [11·2] vs 51·9 years [12·9]), more likely to develop ARDS (26 [81%] patients vs 9 [45%] patients), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (30 [94%] patients vs 7 [35%] patients), either invasively or non-invasively. Most patients had organ function damage, including 35 (67%) with ARDS, 15 (29%) with acute kidney injury, 12 (23%) with cardiac injury, 15 (29%) with liver dysfunction, and one (2%) with pneumothorax. 37 (71%) patients required mechanical ventilation. Hospital-acquired infection occurred in seven (13·5%) patients. Interpretation The mortality of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is considerable. The survival time of the non-survivors is likely to be within 1–2 weeks after ICU admission. Older patients (>65 years) with comorbidities and ARDS are at increased risk of death. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia poses great strain on critical care resources in hospitals, especially if they are not adequately staffed or resourced. Funding None.
13 Mar 2020-JAMA Internal Medicine
TL;DR: Although high fever was associated with the development of ARDS, it was also associated with better outcomes among patients with ARDS and treatment with methylprednisolone may be beneficial for patients who develop ARDS.
Abstract: Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease that was first reported in Wuhan, China, and has subsequently spread worldwide. Risk factors for the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia have not yet been well delineated. Objective To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or died. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study of 201 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in China between December 25, 2019, and January 26, 2020. The final date of follow-up was February 13, 2020. Exposures Confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. Main Outcomes and Measures The development of ARDS and death. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, management, treatment, and outcome data were also collected and analyzed. Results Of 201 patients, the median age was 51 years (interquartile range, 43-60 years), and 128 (63.7%) patients were men. Eighty-four patients (41.8%) developed ARDS, and of those 84 patients, 44 (52.4%) died. In those who developed ARDS, compared with those who did not, more patients presented with dyspnea (50 of 84 [59.5%] patients and 30 of 117 [25.6%] patients, respectively [difference, 33.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-48.1%]) and had comorbidities such as hypertension (23 of 84 [27.4%] patients and 16 of 117 [13.7%] patients, respectively [difference, 13.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-26.1%]) and diabetes (16 of 84 [19.0%] patients and 6 of 117 [5.1%] patients, respectively [difference, 13.9%; 95% CI, 3.6%-24.2%]). In bivariate Cox regression analysis, risk factors associated with the development of ARDS and progression from ARDS to death included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26; 95% CI 2.08-5.11; and HR, 6.17; 95% CI, 3.26-11.67, respectively), neutrophilia (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.19; and HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17, respectively), and organ and coagulation dysfunction (eg, higher lactate dehydrogenase [HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.44-1.79; and HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.52, respectively] and D-dimer [HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; and HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04, respectively]). High fever (≥39 °C) was associated with higher likelihood of ARDS development (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.11-2.84) and lower likelihood of death (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.82). Among patients with ARDS, treatment with methylprednisolone decreased the risk of death (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance Older age was associated with greater risk of development of ARDS and death likely owing to less rigorous immune response. Although high fever was associated with the development of ARDS, it was also associated with better outcomes among patients with ARDS. Moreover, treatment with methylprednisolone may be beneficial for patients who develop ARDS.
01 Sep 1988-The American review of respiratory disease
TL;DR: An expanded definition of ARDS is proposed that takes into account new knowledge about adult respiratory distress syndrome and its clinical features, physiologic disturbances, prognosis, and pathologic findings.
Abstract: More than twenty years ago, Ashbaugh and coworkers, (1), in a now classic article, described. 12 patients whose striking but uniform clinical, physiologic, roentgenographic,and pathologic abnormalities distinguished them from among 272adult patients who had received respiratory support in the intensive care units of Colorado General Hospital and Denver General Hospital. The 12patients all had severedyspnea, tachypnea, cyanosis that was refractory to oxygen therapy, decreased respiratory system compliance, and diffuse alveolar infiltrations on their chest radiographs. Pathologic examination in seven patients who died revealed atelectasis, vascular congestion and hemorrhage, severe pulmonary edema and hyaline membranes. Shortly afterward, Petty and coworkers (2), called this constellation of findings the adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Since then, ARDS has been recognized as an entity throughout the world and has been the subject of numerous conferences, hundreds of articles, and several books. As a result of this activity, much descriptive information has been obtained about ARDS, and we have learned a lot about its clinical features, physiologic disturbances, prognosis, and pathologic findings. And yet formidable problems remain: there is disagreement about exactly what ARDS is and on what causes it; more importantly, available empiric treatment is inadequate, and mortality remains unacceptably high (600/0 or more) (3). This appears to be one of the few points of agreement among investigators, but even that statement is arguable (4). We believe that much of the controversy concerning ARDS is explained by the lack of a satisfactory definition of this elusivesyndrome. How can you collect, much less compare, epidemiologicdata and mortality figures when there is no uniformly accepted (and used) definition? How can you study basic pathophysiologic mechanisms, understand natural history, and above all, evaluate new therapeutic approaches in what appears now to be an amalgam of many different disorders? The purpose of this article, therefore, is to propose an expanded definition of ARDS that takes into account new knowledge about