Rethinking Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome after COVID-19: If a “Better” Definition Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

The definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has a somewhat controversial history, with some even questioning the need for the term "ARDS." This controversy has been amplified by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic given the marked increase in the incidence of ARDS, the relatively new treatment modalities that do not fit neatly with the Berlin definition, and the difficulty of making the diagnosis in resource-limited settings. We propose that attempts to revise the definition of ARDS should apply the framework originally developed by psychologists and social scientists and used by other medical disciplines to generate and assess definitions of clinical syndromes that do not have gold standards. This framework is structured around measures of reliability, feasibility, and validity. Future revisions of the definition of ARDS should contain the purpose, the methodology, and the framework for empirically testing any proposed definition. Attempts to revise critical illness syndromes' definitions usually hope to make them "better"; our recommendation is that future attempts use the same criteria used by other fields in defining what "better" means

Severity of Hypoxemia and Effect of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Rationale: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is theoretically beneficial for lung protection, but the results of clinical trials are inconsistent, with study-level meta-analyses suggesting no significant effect on mortality. Objectives: The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to identify acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patient subgroups with differential outcomes from HFOV. Methods: After a comprehensive search for trials, two reviewers independently identified randomized trials comparing HFOV with conventional ventilation for adults with ARDS. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 1,552 patients in four trials were analyzed, applying uniform definitions for study variables and outcomes. Patients had a mean baseline Pa-O2/FIO2 of 11 +/- 639 mm Hg; 40% had severe ARDS (Pa-O2/FIO2,100 mm Hg). Mortality at 30 days was 321 of 785 (40.9%) for HFOV patients versus 288 of 767 (37.6%) for control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.46; P = 0.16). This treatment effect varied, however, depending on baseline severity of hypoxemia (P = 0.0003), with harm increasing with Pa-O2/FIO2 among patients with mild-moderate ARDS, and the possibility of decreased mortality in patients with very severe ARDS. Compliance and body mass index did not modify the treatment effect. HFOV increased barotrauma risk compared with conventional ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.96; P = 0.04). Conclusions: HFOV increases mortality for most patients with ARDS but may improve survival among patients with severe hypoxemia on conventional mechanical ventilation

Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Children at the Start of COVID-19 Outbreak: A Nationwide Experience.

This is a prospective, multicenter, and observational study with the aim of describing physiological characteristics, respiratory management, and outcomes of children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) from different etiologies receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) compared with those affected by SARS-CoV-2. Twenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria: 9 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 patients without COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 patients had more pre-existing comorbidities (78.9% vs. 44.4%) than COVID-19 patients. At AHRF onset, non-COVID-19 patients had worse oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 = 95 mmHg (65.5-133) vs. 150 mmHg (105-220), p = 0.04), oxygenation index = 15.9 (11-28.4) vs. 9.3 (6.7-10.6), p = 0.01), and higher PaCO2 (48 mmHg (46.5-63) vs. 41 mmHg (40-45), p = 0.07, that remained higher at 48 h: 54 mmHg (43-58.7) vs. 41 (38.5-45.5), p = 0.03). In 12 patients (5 COVID-19 and 7 non-COVID-19), AHRF evolved to pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). All non-COVID-19 patients had severe PARDS, while 3 out of 5 patients in the COVID-19 group had mild or moderate PARDS. Overall Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (PICU) mortality was 14.3%. Children with AHRF due to SARS-CoV2 infection had fewer comorbidities and better oxygenation than patients with non-COVID-19 AHRF. In this study, progression to severe PARDS was rarely observed in children with COVID-19

Respiratory Subsets in Patients with Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome for Early Prediction of Death.

Introduction: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the PaO2/FiO2 ratio at the time of ARDS diagnosis is weakly associated with mortality. We hypothesized that setting a PaO2/FiO2 threshold in 150 mm Hg at 24 h from moderate/severe ARDS diagnosis would improve predictions of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We conducted an ancillary study in 1303 patients with moderate to severe ARDS managed with lung-protective ventilation enrolled consecutively in four prospective multicenter cohorts in a network of ICUs. The first three cohorts were pooled (n = 1000) as a testing cohort; the fourth cohort (n = 303) served as a confirmatory cohort. Based on the thresholds for PaO2/FiO2 (150 mm Hg) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (10 cm H2O), the patients were classified into four possible subsets at baseline and at 24 h using a standardized PEEP-FiO2 approach: (I) PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 150 at PEE