Lung Injury Prediction Score in Hospitalized Patients at Risk of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the emergency department, but it has not been validated in non-emergency department hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate whether Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies non-emergency department hospitalized patients at risk of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of critical care contact. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Nine hundred consecutive patients (≥ 18 yr old) with at least one acute respiratory distress syndrome risk factor at the time of critical care contact. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung Injury Prediction Score was calculated using the worst values within the 12 hours before initial critical care contact. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of initial contact were excluded. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 124 patients (13.7%) a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 2-3) after critical care contact. Hospital mortality was 22% and was significantly higher in acute respiratory distress syndrome than non-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (48% vs 18%; p < 0.001). Increasing Lung Injury Prediction Score was significantly associated with development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.42) and the composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34). A Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.26-7.72), composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.68-3.49), and acute respiratory distress syndrome after accounting for the competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.05-6.72). For acute respiratory distress syndrome development, the Lung Injury Prediction Score has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 and a Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 has 90% sensitivity (misses only 10% of acute respiratory distress syndrome cases), 31% specificity, 17% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of non-emergency department hospitalized patients, the Lung Injury Prediction Score and Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 can identify patients at increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or death at the time of critical care contact but it does not perform as well as in the original emergency department cohort.

Enterococcus hirae Bacteremia Associated with Acute Pancreatitis and Septic Shock.

Infection with Enterococcus hirae has rarely been reported in humans but is not uncommon in mammals and birds. We describe a case of Enterococcus hirae bacteremia associated with acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, and septic shock responsive to antibiotic therapy and supportive critical care management. Unique aspects of this case of Enterococcus hirae bacteremia are its association with acute pancreatitis and its geographical origin. To our knowledge, this is the first report of Enterococcus hirae bacteremia occurring in a patient in the United States. Although human infection with this organism appears to be rare, all cases reported to date describe bacteremia associated with severe and life-threatening illness. Thus, physicians need to be cognizant of the clinical significance of this heretofore little recognized pathogen.

Ventilator Settings Can Substantially Impact Patients' Comfort.

BACKGROUND: With increasing realization that sedatives may complicate care of mechanically ventilated patients, greater emphasis might turn to promoting comfort by titration of ventilator settings. HYPOTHESIS: Patients with acute on chronic respiratory failure (ACRF) with underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) demonstrate different levels of comfort in response to varying ventilator settings compared to those with underlying obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS). METHODS: Patients recovering from ACRF with underlying COPD or OHS were randomized to varying combinations of ventilator modes (assist control and pressure support), tidal volumes, and inspiratory flows for 3 minutes/setting. For each ventilator setting, physiologic variables were recorded and patients indicated their level of comfort using a 10-point Borg scale. RESULTS: In all, 20 patients, aged 68 ± 13 years (standard deviation) and ventilated for 4.9 days, were enrolled. Of 20 patients, 13 had COPD and 7 had OHS. No ventilator mode, flow, or tidal volume provided consistently greater comfort between the groups, but patients reported substantial ranges of comfort (up to 8 Borg points) across the ventilator settings studied. There were no significant differences in heart rate, blood pressure, or airway pressures within patients across ventilator settings or between the groups, but patients with OHS were more tachypneic compared to patients with COPD while breathing on assist control of 6 mL/kg (constant flow 60 L/min) and 8 mL/kg (decelerating flow 40 L/min). There was no correlation between comfort and systolic blood pressure, heart rate, or respiratory rate. CONCLUSION: Ventilator parameters may impact patients' comfort substantially. Future studies may help identify evidence-based methodology for gauging comfort following changes in ventilator settings and the settings that are most likely to positively impact various groups of patients.

Perseverant, non-indicated treatment of obese patients for obstructive lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators are a mainstay of treatment for patients with airflow obstruction. We hypothesized that patients with obesity and no objective documentation of airflow obstruction are inappropriately treated with bronchodilators. METHODS: Spirometric results and medical records of all patients with body mass index >30 kg/m2 who were referred for testing between March 2010 and August 2011 were analyzed. RESULTS: 155 patients with mean age of 52.6 ± (SE)1.1 y and BMI of 38.7 ± 0.7 kg/m2 were studied. Spirometry showed normal respiratory mechanics in 62 (40%), irreversible airflow obstruction in 36 (23.2%), flows suggestive of restriction in 35 (22.6%), reversible obstruction, suggestive of asthma in 11 (7.1%), and mixed pattern (obstructive and restrictive) in 6 (3.9%). Prior to testing, 45.2% (28 of 62) of patients with normal spirometry were being treated with medications for obstructive lung diseases and 33.9% (21 of 62) continued them despite absence of airflow obstruction on spirometry. 60% (21 of 35) of patients with a restrictive pattern in their spirometry received treatment for obstruction prior to spirometry and 51.4% (18 of 35) continued bronchodilator therapy after spirometric testing. There was no independent association of non-indicated treatment with spirometric results, age, BMI, co-morbidities or smoking history. All patients with airflow obstruction on testing who were receiving bronchodilators before spirometry continued to receive them after testing. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients with obesity referred for pulmonary function testing did not have obstructive lung disease, but were treated nonetheless, before and after spirometry demonstrating absence of airway obstruction.