RESUMEN
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients despite advancements in the field. Mechanical ventilatory strategies are a vital component of ARDS management to prevent secondary lung injury and improve patient outcomes. Multiple strategies including utilization of low tidal volumes, targeting low plateau pressures to minimize barotrauma, using low FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen) to prevent injury related to oxygen free radicals, optimization of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) to maintain or improve lung recruitment, and utilization of prone ventilation have been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality. The role of other mechanical ventilatory strategies like non-invasive ventilation, recruitment maneuvers, esophageal pressure monitoring, determination of optimal PEEP, and appropriate patient selection for extracorporeal support is not clear. In this article, we review evidence-based mechanical ventilatory strategies and ventilatory adjuncts for ARDS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, both the history and laboratory testing are paramount to making an accurate diagnosis. Situations in which laboratory findings and patient history are not congruent pose a diagnostic dilemma. We report a case of a young woman presenting with a myriad of electrolyte and acid-base disorders. Difficulty in reaching a unifying diagnosis persisted due to discordant patient history. We believe this case shows that lab findings will clearly portray the problems a patient has and should be given more credence in a case where the history is discordant with lab findings. CASE PRESENTATION: A 28-year-old Hispanic American woman presented to the emergency room of our institution with a complaint of painless and sudden onset of stiffness in her upper and lower limbs. Associated weakness worse in the distal limbs was also reported. She experienced shortness of breath with minimal exertion, diaphoresis, and anxiety. Her vital signs revealed tachycardia without corresponding fever. She was conscious, oriented, and alert. Her physical exam revealed dry mucous membranes and warm extremities. She denied recent consumption of a large carbohydrate meal, diarrhea, vomiting, use of laxatives, and use of alcohol or recreational drugs. She vaguely described two previous similar episodes in the last 7 months that spontaneously resolved. Her medical history was significant only for hypothyroidism treated with daily levothyroxine tablets. Laboratory analysis revealed the following abnormalities: an elevated anion gap with significant lactate, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, elevated mean corpuscular volume, elevated mean cell hemoglobin, and elevated liver enzymes with aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio > 2. She was hydrated with balanced crystalloids, and her electrolyte deficiencies corrected. The etiology of her multiple electrolyte abnormalities was unclear because alcohol use was vehemently denied. Extensive evaluation for causes of electrolyte disorder was undertaken, which was unrevealing. On further interrogation, she admitted to recent alcohol intoxication and several episodes of vomiting before presentation. She was advised to refrain from alcohol use and discharged afterward. CONCLUSION: Both patient history and laboratory analysis have a role in identifying and confirming a diagnosis. In cases in which laboratory tests are incongruous with reported history, making a unifying diagnosis can be challenging or delayed. The importance of taking a comprehensive history cannot be overemphasized, but history provided by patients may be prone to intentional or unintentional distortion, whereas laboratory findings are more objective. The case presented underscores why the lab findings should be given credence in cases in which there is discordance between lab results and the provided patient history.