The PANDORA Study: Prevalence and Outcome of Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in the Pre-COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the epidemiological characteristics, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in the era of lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV). DESIGN: A 6-month prospective, epidemiological, observational study. SETTING: A network of 22 multidisciplinary ICUs in Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF (defined as Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg on positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] ≥ 5 cm H2O and Fio2 ≥ 0.3) and followed-up until hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were prevalence of AHRF and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of ARDS, ventilatory management, and use of adjunctive therapies. During the study period, 9,803 patients were admitted: 4,456 (45.5%) received MV, 1,271 (13%) met AHRF criteria (1,241 were included into the study: 333 [26.8%] met Berlin ARDS criteria and 908 [73.2%] did not). At baseline, tidal volume was 6.9 ± 1.1 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 8.4 ± 3.1 cm H2O, Fio2 0.63 ± 0.22, and plateau pressure 21.5 ± 5.4 cm H2O. ARDS patients received higher Fio2 and PEEP than non-ARDS (0.75 ± 0.22 vs 0.59 ± 0.20 cm H2O and 10.3 ± 3.4 vs 7.7 ± 2.6 cm H2O, respectively [p < 0.0001]). Adjunctive therapies were rarely used in non-ARDS patients. Patients without ARDS had higher ventilator-free days than ARDS (12.2 ± 11.6 vs 9.3 ± 9.7 d; p < 0.001). All-cause ICU mortality was similar in AHRF with or without ARDS (34.8% [95% CI, 29.7-40.2] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 32.3-38.7]; p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: AHRF without ARDS is a very common syndrome in the ICU with a high mortality that requires specific studies into its epidemiology and ventilatory management. We found that the prevalence of ARDS was much lower than reported in recent observational studies.

Stratification for Identification of Prognostic Categories In the Acute RESpiratory Distress Syndrome (SPIRES) Score.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a scoring model for stratifying patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome into risk categories (Stratification for identification of Prognostic categories In the acute RESpiratory distress syndrome score) for early prediction of death in the ICU, independent of the underlying disease and cause of death. DESIGN: A development and validation study using clinical data from four prospective, multicenter, observational cohorts. SETTING: A network of multidisciplinary ICUs. PATIENTS: One-thousand three-hundred one patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome managed with lung-protective ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study followed Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guidelines for prediction models. We performed logistic regression analysis, bootstrapping, and internal-external validation of prediction models with variables collected within 24 hours of acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis in 1,000 patients for model development. Primary outcome was ICU death. The Stratification for identification of Prognostic categories In the acute RESpiratory distress syndrome score was based on patient's age, number of extrapulmonary organ failures, values of end-inspiratory plateau pressure, and ratio of Pao2 to Fio2 assessed at 24 hours of acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve across internal-external validations was 0.860 (95% CI, 0.831-0.890). External validation in a new cohort of 301 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients confirmed the accuracy and robustness of the scoring model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.870; 95% CI, 0.829-0.911). The Stratification for identification of Prognostic categories In the acute RESpiratory distress syndrome score stratified patients in three distinct prognostic classes and achieved better prediction of ICU death than ratio of Pao2 to Fio2 at acute respiratory distress syndrome onset or at 24 hours, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scale. CONCLUSIONS: The Stratification for identification of Prognostic categories In the acute RESpiratory distress syndrome score represents a novel strategy for early stratification of acute respiratory distress syndrome patients into prognostic categories and for selecting patients for therapeutic trials.

Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no proven specific pharmacological treatment for patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The efficacy of corticosteroids in ARDS remains controversial. We aimed to assess the effects of dexamethasone in ARDS, which might change pulmonary and systemic inflammation and result in a decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in a network of 17 intensive care units (ICUs) in teaching hospitals across Spain in patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 200 mm Hg or less assessed with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 10 cm H2O or more and FiO2 of 0·5 or more at 24 h after ARDS onset). Patients with brain death, terminal-stage disease, or receiving corticosteroids or immunosuppressive drugs were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerised randomisation allocation sequence using blocks of 10 opaque, sealed envelopes to receive immediate treatment with dexamethasone or continued routine intensive care (control group). Patients in the dexamethasone group received an intravenous dose of 20 mg once daily from day 1 to day 5, which was reduced to 10 mg once daily from day 6 to day 10. Patients in both groups were ventilated with lung-protective mechanical ventilation. Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at 28 days, defined as the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation from day of randomisation to day 28. Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality 60 days after randomisation. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01731795. FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018, we enrolled 277 patients and randomly assigned 139 patients to the dexamethasone group and 138 to the control group. The trial was stopped by the data safety monitoring board due to low enrolment rate after enrolling more than 88% (277/314) of the planned sample size. The mean number of ventilator-free days was higher in the dexamethasone group than in the control group (between-group difference 4·8 days [95% CI 2·57 to 7·03]; p<0·0001). At 60 days, 29 (21%) patients in the dexamethasone group and 50 (36%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference -15·3% [-25·9 to -4·9]; p=0·0047). The proportion of adverse events did not differ significantly between the dexamethasone group and control group. The most common adverse events were hyperglycaemia in the ICU (105 [76%] patients in the dexamethasone group vs 97 [70%] patients in the control group), new infections in the ICU (eg, pneumonia or sepsis; 33 [24%] vs 35 [25%]), and barotrauma (14 [10%] vs 10 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Early administration of dexamethasone could reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and overall mortality in patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS. FUNDING: Fundación Mutua Madrileña, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, The European Regional Development's Funds, Asociación Científica Pulmón y Ventilación Mecánica.

A Prognostic Enrichment Strategy for Selection of Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Incomplete or ambiguous evidence for identifying high-risk patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome for enrollment into randomized controlled trials has come at the cost of an unreasonable number of negative trials. We examined a set of selected variables early in acute respiratory distress syndrome to determine accurate prognostic predictors for selecting high-risk patients for randomized controlled trials. DESIGN: A training and testing study using a secondary analysis of data from four prospective, multicenter, observational studies. SETTING: A network of multidisciplinary ICUs. PATIENTS: We studied 1,200 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome managed with lung-protective ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated different thresholds for patient's age, PaO2/FIO2, plateau pressure, and number of extrapulmonary organ failures to predict ICU outcome at 24 hours of acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis. We generated 1,000 random scenarios as training (n = 900, 75% of population) and testing (n = 300, 25% of population) datasets and averaged the logistic coefficients for each scenario. Thresholds for age (< 50, 50-70, > 70 yr), PaO2/FIO2 (≤ 100, 101-150, > 150 mm Hg), plateau pressure (< 29, 29-30, > 30 cm H2O), and number of extrapulmonary organ failure (< 2, 2, > 2) stratified accurately acute respiratory distress syndrome patients into categories of risk. The model that included all four variables proved best to identify patients with the highest or lowest risk of death (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88). Decision tree analyses confirmed the accuracy and robustness of this enrichment model. CONCLUSIONS: Combined thresholds for patient's age, PaO2/FIO2, plateau pressure, and extrapulmonary organ failure provides prognostic enrichment accuracy for stratifying and selecting acute respiratory distress syndrome patients for randomized controlled trials.

A vascular endothelial growth factor receptor gene variant is associated with susceptibility to acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the main causes of mortality in adults admitted to intensive care units. Previous studies have demonstrated the existence of genetic variants involved in the susceptibility and outcomes of this syndrome. We aimed to identify novel genes implicated in sepsis-induced ARDS susceptibility. METHODS: We first performed a prioritization of candidate genes by integrating our own genomic data from a transcriptomic study in an animal model of ARDS and from the only published genome-wide association study of ARDS study in humans. Then, we selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from prioritized genes to conduct a case-control discovery association study in patients with sepsis-induced ARDS (n = 225) and population-based controls (n = 899). Finally, we validated our findings in an independent sample of 661 sepsis-induced ARDS cases and 234 at-risk controls. RESULTS: Three candidate genes were prioritized: dynein cytoplasmic-2 heavy chain-1, fms-related tyrosine kinase 1 (FLT1), and integrin alpha-1. Of those, a SNP from FLT1 gene (rs9513106) was associated with ARDS in the discovery study, with an odds ratio (OR) for the C allele of 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.98 (p = 0.037). This result was replicated in an independent study (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62-0.98, p = 0.039), showing consistent direction of effects in a meta-analysis (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65-0.92, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: We identified FLT1 as a novel ARDS susceptibility gene and demonstrated that integration of genomic data can be a valid procedure to identify novel susceptibility genes. These results contribute to previous firm associations and functional evidences implicating FLT1 gene in other complex traits that are mechanistically linked, through the key role of endothelium, to the pathophysiology of ARDS.

Evaluating the efficacy of dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

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 ).

Age, PaO2/FIO2, and Plateau Pressure Score: A Proposal for a Simple Outcome Score in Patients With the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

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.

Assessment of PaO2/FiO2 for stratification of patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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.