9 research outputs found

    Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions

    Get PDF
    Neural respiratory drive, i.e., the activity of respiratory centres controlling breathing, is an overlooked physiologic variable which affects the pathophysiology and the clinical outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Spontaneous breathing may offer multiple physiologic benefits in these patients, including decreased need for sedation, preserved diaphragm activity and improved cardiovascular function. However, excessive effort to breathe due to high respiratory drive may lead to patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), even in the absence of mechanical ventilation. In the present review, we focus on the physiological and clinical implications of control of respiratory drive in ARDS patients. We summarize the main determinants of neural respiratory drive and the mechanisms involved in its potentiation, in health and ARDS. We also describe potential and pitfalls of the available bedside methods for drive assessment and explore classical and more \u201cfuturistic\u201d interventions to control drive in ARDS patients

    Personalized medicine for ARDS : the 2035 research agenda

    No full text
    In the last 20 years, survival among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has increased substantially with advances in lung-protective ventilation and resuscitation. Building on this success, personalizing mechanical ventilation to patient-specific physiology for enhanced lung protection will be a top research priority for the years ahead. However, the ARDS research agenda must be broader in scope. Further understanding of the heterogeneous biology, from molecular to mechanical, underlying early ARDS pathogenesis is essential to inform therapeutic discovery and tailor treatment and prevention strategies to the individual patient. The ARDSne(x)t research agenda for the next 20 years calls for bringing personalized medicine to ARDS, asking simultaneously both whether a treatment affords clinically meaningful benefit and for whom. This expanded scope necessitates standard acquisition of highly granular biological, physiological, and clinical data across studies to identify biologically distinct subgroups that may respond differently to a given intervention. Clinical trials will need to consider enrichment strategies and incorporate long-term functional outcomes. Tremendous investment in research infrastructure and global collaboration will be vital to fulfilling this agenda

    ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

    No full text
    The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research

    Hypertensive disorders in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy: insights from the ESC EORP PPCM Registry

    No full text
    Aims: Hypertensive disorders occur in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). How often hypertensive disorders co-exist, and to what extent they impact outcomes, is less clear. We describe differences in phenotype and outcomes in women with PPCM with and without hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Methods: The European Society of Cardiology PPCM Registry enrolled women with PPCM from 2012-2018. Three groups were examined: 1) women without hypertension (‘PPCM-noHTN’); 2) women with hypertension but without pre-eclampsia (‘PPCM-HTN’); 3) women with pre-eclampsia (‘PPCM-PE’). Maternal (6-month) and neonatal outcomes were compared. Results: Of 735 women included, 452 (61.5%) had PPCM-noHTN, 99 (13.5%) had PPCM-HTN and 184 (25.0%) had PPCM-PE. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had more severe symptoms (NYHA IV in 44.4% and 29.9%, p<0.001), more frequent signs of heart failure (pulmonary rales in 70.7% and 55.4%, p=0.002), higher baseline LVEF (32.7% and 30.7%, p=0.005) and smaller left ventricular end diastolic diameter (57.4mm [±6.7] and 59.8mm [±8.1], p<0.001). There were no differences in the frequencies of death from any cause, re-hospitalization for any cause, stroke, or thromboembolic events. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had a greater likelihood of left ventricular recovery (LVEF≥50%) (adjusted OR 2.08 95% CI 1.21-3.57) and an adverse neonatal outcome (composite of termination, miscarriage, low birth weight or neonatal death) (adjusted OR 2.84 95% CI 1.66-4.87). Conclusion: Differences exist in phenotype, recovery of cardiac function and neonatal outcomes according to hypertensive status in women with PPCM

    Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24 h: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

    No full text
    Purpose: To evaluate patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS, identify subgroups with substantial mortality risk, and to determine the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Methods: Our primary objective, in this secondary LUNG SAFE analysis, was to compare outcome in patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24\ua0h. Secondary objectives included identifying factors associated with ARDS persistence and mortality, and the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Results: Of 2377 patients fulfilling the ARDS definition on the first day of ARDS (day 1) and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 503 (24%) no longer fulfilled the ARDS definition the next day, 52% of whom initially had moderate or severe ARDS. Higher tidal volume on day 1 of ARDS was associated with confirmed ARDS [OR 1.07 (CI 1.01\u20131.13), P = 0.035]. Hospital mortality was 38% overall, ranging from 31% in resolved ARDS to 41% in confirmed ARDS, and 57% in confirmed severe ARDS at day 2. In both\ua0resolved and confirmed\ua0ARDS, age, non-respiratory SOFA score, lower PEEP and P/F ratio, higher peak pressure and respiratory rate were each\ua0associated with mortality. In confirmed ARDS, pH and the presence of immunosuppression or neoplasm were also associated\ua0with mortality. The increase in area under the receiver operating curve for ARDS reclassification on day 2 was marginal. Conclusions: ARDS, whether resolved or confirmed at day 2, has a high mortality rate. ARDS reclassification at day 2 has limited predictive value for mortality. The substantial mortality risk in severe confirmed ARDS suggests that complex interventions might best be tested in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073. \ua9 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ESICM

    Death in hospital following ICU discharge : insights from the LUNG SAFE study

    Get PDF
    Altres ajuts: Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR)-Department of Excellence project PREMIA (PREcision MedIcine Approach: bringing biomarker research to clinic); Science Foundation Ireland Future Research Leaders Award; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Brussels; St Michael's Hospital, Toronto; University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.Background: To determine the frequency of, and factors associated with, death in hospital following ICU discharge to the ward. Methods: The Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted across 459 ICUs from 50 countries globally. This study aimed to understand the frequency and factors associated with death in hospital in patients who survived their ICU stay. We examined outcomes in the subpopulation discharged with no limitations of life sustaining treatments ('treatment limitations'), and the subpopulations with treatment limitations. Results: 2186 (94%) patients with no treatment limitations discharged from ICU survived, while 142 (6%) died in hospital. 118 (61%) of patients with treatment limitations survived while 77 (39%) patients died in hospital. Patients without treatment limitations that died in hospital after ICU discharge were older, more likely to have COPD, immunocompromise or chronic renal failure, less likely to have trauma as a risk factor for ARDS. Patients that died post ICU discharge were less likely to receive neuromuscular blockade, or to receive any adjunctive measure, and had a higher pre- ICU discharge non-pulmonary SOFA score. A similar pattern was seen in patients with treatment limitations that died in hospital following ICU discharge. Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients die in hospital following discharge from ICU, with higher mortality in patients with limitations of life-sustaining treatments in place. Non-survivors had higher systemic illness severity scores at ICU discharge than survivors. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073

    Correction to: Potentially modifiable factors contributing to outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome: the LUNG SAFE study

    No full text
    Correction to: Intensive Care Med (2016) 42:1865\u20131876 DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4571-

    Outcomes of Patients Presenting with Mild Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

    No full text
    WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Hospital mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome is approximately 40%, but mortality and trajectory in "mild" acute respiratory distress syndrome (classified only since 2012) are unknown, and many cases are not detected WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: Approximately 80% of cases of mild acute respiratory distress syndrome persist or worsen in the first week; in all cases, the mortality is substantial (30%) and is higher (37%) in those in whom the acute respiratory distress syndrome progresses BACKGROUND:: Patients with initial mild acute respiratory distress syndrome are often underrecognized and mistakenly considered to have low disease severity and favorable outcomes. They represent a relatively poorly characterized population that was only classified as having acute respiratory distress syndrome in the most recent definition. Our primary objective was to describe the natural course and the factors associated with worsening and mortality in this population. METHODS: This study analyzed patients from the international prospective Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) who had initial mild acute respiratory distress syndrome in the first day of inclusion. This study defined three groups based on the evolution of severity in the first week: "worsening" if moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria were met, "persisting" if mild acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria were the most severe category, and "improving" if patients did not fulfill acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria any more from day 2. RESULTS: Among 580 patients with initial mild acute respiratory distress syndrome, 18% (103 of 580) continuously improved, 36% (210 of 580) had persisting mild acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 46% (267 of 580) worsened in the first week after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset. Global in-hospital mortality was 30% (172 of 576; specifically 10% [10 of 101], 30% [63 of 210], and 37% [99 of 265] for patients with improving, persisting, and worsening acute respiratory distress syndrome, respectively), and the median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 (4, 14) days (specifically 3 [2, 5], 7 [4, 14], and 11 [6, 18] days for patients with improving, persisting, and worsening acute respiratory distress syndrome, respectively). Admissions for trauma or pneumonia, higher nonpulmonary sequential organ failure assessment score, lower partial pressure of alveolar oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen, and higher peak inspiratory pressure were independently associated with worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with initial mild acute respiratory distress syndrome continue to fulfill acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in the first week, and nearly half worsen in severity. Their mortality is high, particularly in patients with worsening acute respiratory distress syndrome, emphasizing the need for close attention to this patient population
    corecore