National survey of outcomes and practices in acute respiratory distress syndrome in Singapore

The authors acknowledge the following as the total funding sources for this study: 1. SICM NICER grant: logistical, non-monetary, support from the Society of Intensive Care Medicine Singapore. This was in the form of Ngee Ann Polytechnic students (8) who collected the data for the study for one month. 2. NMRC (National medical research council) grant for Dr, Matthew Cove (partial support for this study): This was in the shape of salary support for all his research related activity. (NMRC/TA/0015/2013) (MEC)

A Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project in collaboration with the international forum for acute care trialists - Collaborative H1N1 Adjuvant Treatment pilot trial (CHAT): study protocol and design of a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Swine origin influenza A/H1N1 infection (H1N1) emerged in early 2009 and rapidly spread to humans. For most infected individuals, symptoms were mild and self-limited; however, a small number developed a more severe clinical syndrome characterized by profound respiratory failure with hospital mortality ranging from 10 to 30%. While supportive care and neuraminidase inhibitors are the main treatment for influenza, data from observational and interventional studies suggest that the course of influenza can be favorably influenced by agents not classically considered as influenza treatments. Multiple observational studies have suggested that HMGCoA reductase inhibitors (statins) can exert a class effect in attenuating inflammation. The Collaborative H1N1 Adjuvant Treatment (CHAT) Pilot Trial sought to investigate the feasibility of conducting a trial during a global pandemic in critically ill patients with H1N1 with the goal of informing the design of a larger trial powered to determine impact of statins on important outcomes.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-national, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of once daily enteral rosuvastatin versus matched placebo administered for 14 days for the treatment of critically ill patients with suspected, probable or confirmed H1N1 infection. We propose to randomize 80 critically ill adults with a moderate to high index of suspicion for H1N1 infection who require mechanical ventilation and have received antiviral therapy for ≤ 72 hours. Site investigators, research coordinators and clinical pharmacists will be blinded to treatment assignment. Only research pharmacy staff will be aware of treatment assignment. We propose several approaches to informed consent including a priori consent from the substitute decision maker (SDM), waived and deferred consent. The primary outcome of the CHAT trial is the proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the study. Secondary outcomes will evaluate adherence to medication administration regimens, the proportion of primary and secondary endpoints collected, the number of patients receiving open-label statins, consent withdrawals and the effect of approved consent models on recruitment rates.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Several aspects of study design including the need to include central randomization, preserve allocation concealment, ensure study blinding compare to a matched placebo and the use novel consent models pose challenges to investigators conducting pandemic research. Moreover, study implementation requires that trial design be pragmatic and initiated in a short time period amidst uncertainty regarding the scope and duration of the pandemic.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN45190901">ISRCTN45190901</a></p

Defining ARDS: do we need a mandatory waiting period?

n/

Precisão do diagnóstico clínico da síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo quando comparado a achados de necropsia Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome in comparison with autopsy findings

OBJETIVO: Comparar a definição de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo (SDRA) estabelecida pela American-European Consensus Conference (AECC, Conferência Americano-Européia) com achados de necropsia. MÉTODOS: Avaliaram-se todos os pacientes que morreram na unidade de terapia intensiva do Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora entre 1995 e 2003 e que foram submetidos à necropsia. Seus prontuários foram revisados para estabelecer a presença ou não dos critérios clínicos de SDRA, cujo diagnóstico histológico foi definido pela presença de dano alveolar difuso (DAD). RESULTADOS: No período, 592 pacientes faleceram e 22 foram submetidos à necropsia. Destes, 10 pacientes (45%) preencheram os critérios de SDRA pela AECC e sete (32%) preencheram os critérios histopatológicos de DAD. A sensibilidade da definição clínica foi de 71% (IC95%: 36-92%) e a especificidade foi de 67% (IC95%: 42-85%). Os valores preditivos positivo e negativo foram, respectivamente, 50 e 83%; e as razões de verossimilhança positiva e negativa foram, respectivamente, 2,33 e 0,47. Os achados histopatológicos nos cinco pacientes que preencheram os critérios clínicos de SDRA, mas não apresentavam DAD, foram pneumonia (n = 2), embolia pulmonar (n = 1), tuberculose (n = 1) e criptococose (n = 1). CONCLUSÃO: A precisão dos critérios da AECC para diagnóstico de SDRA não é tão boa. Em função do baixo valor preditivo positivo e da baixa razão de verossimilhança positiva do diagnóstico clínico, outras hipóteses devem ser consideradas quando há suspeita de SDRA.<br>OBJECTIVE: To compare the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to autopsy findings. METHODS: All patients who died in the intensive care unit of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora University Hospital between 1995 and 2003 and were submitted to autopsy were included in the study. Patient clinical charts were reviewed to establish whether cases met the AECC criteria for a diagnosis of ARDS, histologically defined as the presence of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). RESULTS: During the study period, 592 patients died, and 22 were submitted to autopsy. Of those 22 patients, 10 (45%) met the AECC criteria, and 7 (32%) met the histopathological criteria for DAD. The AECC clinical criteria presented a sensitivity of 71% (95%CI: 36-92%) and a specificity of 67% (95%CI: 42-85%). The positive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 50 and 83%, whereas the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, 2.33 and 0.47. The histopathological findings in the 5 patients who met AECC criteria but did not present DAD were pneumonia (n = 2), pulmonary embolism (n = 1), tuberculosis (n = 1), and cryptococcosis (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the AECC definition of ARDS was godless than satisfactory. Due to the low positive predictive value and the low positive likelihood ratio, other hypotheses must be considered when ARDS is suspected