Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
Crit Care Med ; 44(7): 1361-9, 2016 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27035239

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Although there is general agreement on the characteristic features of the acute respiratory distress syndrome, we lack a scoring system that predicts acute respiratory distress syndrome outcome with high probability. Our objective was to develop an outcome score that clinicians could easily calculate at the bedside to predict the risk of death of acute respiratory distress syndrome patients 24 hours after diagnosis. DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, observational, descriptive, and validation study. SETTING: A network of multidisciplinary ICUs. PATIENTS: Six-hundred patients meeting Berlin criteria for moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome enrolled in two independent cohorts treated with lung-protective ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using individual demographic, pulmonary, and systemic data at 24 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis, we derived our prediction score in 300 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients based on stratification of variable values into tertiles, and validated in an independent cohort of 300 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We found that a 9-point score based on patient's age, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and plateau pressure at 24 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis was associated with death. Patients with a score greater than 7 had a mortality of 83.3% (relative risk, 5.7; 95% CI, 3.0-11.0), whereas patients with scores less than 5 had a mortality of 14.5% (p < 0.0000001). We confirmed the predictive validity of the score in a validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A simple 9-point score based on the values of age, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and plateau pressure calculated at 24 hours on protective ventilation after acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis could be used in real time for rating prognosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with high probability.


Assuntos
Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Oxigênio/sangue , Respiração com Pressão Positiva , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , APACHE , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Feminino , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oxigênio/administração & dosagem , Respiração por Pressão Positiva Intrínseca , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Estudos Prospectivos , Curva ROC
2.
Crit Care Med ; 40(12): 3238-45, 2012 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22990455

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The incidence and outcome of the acute respiratory distress syndrome in children are not well-known, especially under current ventilatory practices. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, etiology, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the pediatric population in the setting of lung protective ventilation. DESIGN: A 1-yr, prospective, multicenter, observational study in 12 geographical areas of Spain (serving a population of 3.77 million ≤ 15 yrs of age) covered by 21 pediatric intensive care units. SUBJECTS: All consecutive pediatric patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and meeting American-European Consensus Criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on ventilatory management, gas exchange, hemodynamics, and organ dysfunction were collected. A total of 146 mechanically ventilated patients fulfilled the acute respiratory distress syndrome definition, representing a incidence of 3.9/100,000 population ≤ 15 yrs of age/yr. Pneumonia and sepsis were the most common causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome. At the time of meeting acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria, mean PaO2/FIO2 was 99 mm Hg ± 41 mm Hg, mean tidal volume was 7.6 mL/kg ± 1.8 mL/kg predicted body weight, mean plateau pressure was 27 cm H2O ± 6 cm H2O, and mean positive end-expiratory pressure was 8.9 cm ± 2.9 cm H2O. Overall pediatric intensive care unit and hospital mortality were 26% (95% confidence interval 19.6-33.7) and 27.4% (95% confidence interval 20.8-35.1), respectively. At 24 hrs, after the assessment of oxygenation under standard ventilatory settings, 118 (80.8%) patients continued to meet acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria (PaO2/FIO2 104 mm Hg ± 36 mm Hg; pediatric intensive care units mortality 30.5%), whereas 28 patients (19.2%) had a PaO2/FIO2 >200 mm Hg (pediatric intensive care units mortality 7.1%) (p = .014). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to estimate prospectively the pediatric population-based acute respiratory distress syndrome incidence and the first incidence study performed during the routine application of lung protective ventilation in children. Our findings support a lower acute respiratory distress syndrome incidence and mortality than those reported for adults. PaO2/FIO2 ratios at acute respiratory distress syndrome onset and at 24 hrs after onset were helpful in defining groups at greater risk of dying (clinical trials registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT 01142544).


Assuntos
Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/epidemiologia , Lesão Pulmonar Aguda/epidemiologia , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Lactente , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva Pediátrica , Masculino , Auditoria Médica , Pneumonia/complicações , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/etiologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/fisiopatologia , Espanha/epidemiologia
3.
Trials ; 17: 342, 2016 07 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27449641

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although much has evolved in our understanding of the pathogenesis and factors affecting outcome of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), still there is no specific pharmacologic treatment for ARDS. Several clinical trials have evaluated the utility of corticoids but none of them has demonstrated a definitive benefit due to small sample sizes, selection bias, patient heterogeneity, and time of initiation of treatment or duration of therapy. We postulated that adjunctive treatment of persistent ARDS with intravenous dexamethasone might change the pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response and thereby reduce morbidity, leading to a decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and a decrease in mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in 314 patients with persistent moderate/severe ARDS. Persistent ARDS is defined as maintaining a PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg on PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O and FiO2 ≥ 0.5 after 24 hours of routine intensive care. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to two arms: (i) conventional treatment without dexamethasone, (ii) conventional treatment plus dexamethasone. Patients in the dexamethasone group will be treated with a daily dose of 20 mg iv from day 1 to day 5, and 10 mg iv from day 6 to day 10. Primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from mechanical ventilation at day 28 after intubation. Secondary outcome is all-cause mortality at day 60 after enrollment. DISCUSSION: This study will be the largest randomized controlled clinical trial to assess the role of dexamethasone in patients with persistent ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on 21 November 2012 as DEXA-ARDS at ClinicalTrials.gov website ( NCT01731795 ).


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anti-Inflamatórios/administração & dosagem , Viés , Protocolos Clínicos , Dexametasona/administração & dosagem , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Feminino , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial , Tamanho da Amostra , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
Trials ; 17(1): 500, 2016 10 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27737690

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure. It is assumed that asynchronies worsen lung function and prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a novel approach to MV based on neural respiratory center output that is able to trigger, cycle, and regulate the ventilatory cycle. We hypothesized that the use of NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a reduction of the duration of MV. It is further hypothesized that NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a decrease in the length of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in 306 mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure from several etiologies. Only patients ventilated for less than 5 days, and who are expected to require prolonged MV for an additional 72 h or more and are able to breathe spontaneously, will be considered for enrollment. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to two ventilatory arms: (1) conventional lung-protective MV (n = 153) and conventional lung-protective MV with NAVA (n = 153). Primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from MV at day 28 after endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are total length of MV, and ICU and hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized clinical trial examining, on a multicenter scale, the beneficial effects of NAVA in reducing the dependency on MV of patients with acute respiratory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov website ( NCT01730794 ). Registered on 15 November 2012.


Assuntos
Suporte Ventilatório Interativo/métodos , Pulmão/inervação , Centro Respiratório/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Doença Aguda , Protocolos Clínicos , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Suporte Ventilatório Interativo/efeitos adversos , Suporte Ventilatório Interativo/mortalidade , Tempo de Internação , Estudos Prospectivos , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Projetos de Pesquisa , Insuficiência Respiratória/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Respiratória/mortalidade , Insuficiência Respiratória/fisiopatologia , Mecânica Respiratória , Fatores de Risco , Espanha , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Desmame do Respirador
5.
BMJ Open ; 5(3): e006812, 2015 Mar 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25818272

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: A recent update of the definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) proposed an empirical classification based on ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) at ARDS onset. Since the proposal did not mandate PaO2/FiO2 calculation under standardised ventilator settings (SVS), we hypothesised that a stratification based on baseline PaO2/FiOv would not provide accurate assessment of lung injury severity. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre, observational study. SETTING: A network of teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 478 patients with eligible criteria for moderate (100300). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Group severity and hospital mortality. RESULTS: At ARDS onset, 173 patients had a PaO2/FiO2≤100 but only 38.7% met criteria for severe ARDS at 24 h under SVS. When assessed under SVS, 61.3% of patients with severe ARDS were reclassified as moderate, mild and non-ARDS, while lung severity and hospital mortality changed markedly with every PaO2/FiO2 category (p<0.000001). Our model of risk stratification outperformed the stratification using baseline PaO2/FiO2 and non-standardised PaO2/FiO2 at 24 h, when analysed by the predictive receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: area under the ROC curve for stratification at baseline was 0.583 (95% CI 0.525 to 0.636), 0.605 (95% CI 0.552 to 0.658) at 24 h without SVS and 0.693 (95% CI 0.645 to 0.742) at 24 h under SVS (p<0.000001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the need for patient assessment under SVS at 24 h after ARDS onset to assess disease severity, and have implications for the diagnosis and management of ARDS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00435110 and NCT00736892.


Assuntos
Mortalidade Hospitalar , Pulmão/fisiopatologia , Monitorização Fisiológica/métodos , Oxigênio/fisiologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/diagnóstico , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/diagnóstico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Adulto , Idoso , Área Sob a Curva , Gasometria , Feminino , Hospitais de Ensino , Humanos , Inalação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pressão Parcial , Respiração com Pressão Positiva , Estudos Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/mortalidade , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/fisiopatologia , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/mortalidade , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/fisiopatologia , Volume de Ventilação Pulmonar
6.
Intensive Care Med ; 39(4): 583-92, 2013 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23370826

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The PaO2/FiO2 is an integral part of the assessment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The American-European Consensus Conference definition does not mandate any standardization procedure. We hypothesized that the use of PaO2/FiO2 calculated under a standard ventilatory setting within 24 h of ARDS diagnosis allows a more clinically relevant ARDS classification. METHODS: We studied 452 ARDS patients enrolled prospectively in two independent, multicenter cohorts treated with protective mechanical ventilation. At the time of ARDS diagnosis, patients had a PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200. In the derivation cohort (n = 170), we measured PaO2/FiO2 with two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (≥ 5 and ≥ 10 cmH2O) and two levels of FiO2 (≥ 0.5 and 1.0) at ARDS onset and 24 h later. Dependent upon PaO2 response, patients were reclassified into three groups: mild (PaO2/FiO2 > 200), moderate (PaO2/FiO2 101-200), and severe (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 100) ARDS. The primary outcome measure was ICU mortality. The standard ventilatory setting that reached the highest significance difference in mortality among these categories was tested in a separate cohort (n = 282). RESULTS: The only standard ventilatory setting that identified the three PaO2/FiO2 risk categories in the derivation cohort was PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O and FiO2 ≥ 0.5 at 24 h after ARDS onset (p = 0.0001). Using this ventilatory setting, patients in the validation cohort were reclassified as having mild ARDS (n = 47, mortality 17 %), moderate ARDS (n = 149, mortality 40.9 %), and severe ARDS (n = 86, mortality 58.1 %) (p = 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our method for assessing PaO2/FiO2 greatly improved risk stratification of ARDS and could be used for enrolling appropriate ARDS patients into therapeutic clinical trials.


Assuntos
Gasometria/normas , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/classificação , Adulto , Gasometria/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Estudos Prospectivos , Troca Gasosa Pulmonar/fisiologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/sangue , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/diagnóstico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
7.
Intensive Care Med ; 37(12): 1932-41, 2011 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21997128

RESUMO

PURPOSE: While our understanding of the pathogenesis and management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has improved over the past decade, estimates of its incidence have been controversial. The goal of this study was to examine ARDS incidence and outcome under current lung protective ventilatory support practices before and after the diagnosis of ARDS. METHODS: This was a 1-year prospective, multicenter, observational study in 13 geographical areas of Spain (serving a population of 3.55 million at least 18 years of age) between November 2008 and October 2009. Subjects comprised all consecutive patients meeting American-European Consensus Criteria for ARDS. Data on ventilatory management, gas exchange, hemodynamics, and organ dysfunction were collected. RESULTS: A total of 255 mechanically ventilated patients fulfilled the ARDS definition, representing an incidence of 7.2/100,000 population/year. Pneumonia and sepsis were the most common causes of ARDS. At the time of meeting ARDS criteria, mean PaO(2)/FiO(2) was 114 ± 40 mmHg, mean tidal volume was 7.2 ± 1.1 ml/kg predicted body weight, mean plateau pressure was 26 ± 5 cmH(2)O, and mean positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 9.3 ± 2.4 cmH(2)O. Overall ARDS intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality was 42.7% (95%CI 37.7-47.8) and 47.8% (95%CI 42.8-53.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to prospectively estimate the ARDS incidence during the routine application of lung protective ventilation. Our findings support previous estimates in Europe and are an order of magnitude lower than those reported in the USA and Australia. Despite use of lung protective ventilation, overall ICU and hospital mortality of ARDS patients is still higher than 40%.


Assuntos
Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/epidemiologia , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/diagnóstico , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/etiologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Espanha/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa