Author
Listed:
- Wolfgang Huber
- Michael Findeisen
- Tobias Lahmer
- Alexander Herner
- Sebastian Rasch
- Ulrich Mayr
- Petra Hoppmann
- Juliane Jaitner
- Rainer Okrojek
- Franz Brettner
- Roland Schmid
- Paul Schmidle
Abstract
Background: Early recognition of high-risk-patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) might improve their outcome by less protracted allocation to intensified therapy including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among numerous predictors and classifications, the American European Consensus Conferenece (AECC)- and Berlin-definitions as well as the oxygenation index (OI) and the Murray-/Lung Injury Score are the most common. Most studies compared the prediction of mortality by these parameters on the day of intubation and/or diagnosis of ARDS. However, only few studies investigated prediction over time, in particular for more than three days. Objective: Therefore, our study aimed at characterization of the best predictor and the best day(s) to predict 28-days-mortality within four days after intubation of patients with ARDS. Methods: In 100 consecutive patients with ARDS severity according to OI (mean airway pressure*FiO2/paO2), modified Murray-score without radiological points (Murray_mod), AECC- and Berlin-definition, were daily documented for four days after intubation. In the subgroup of 49 patients with transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) monitoring (PiCCO), extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) was measured daily. Primary endpoint: Prediction of 28-days-mortality (Area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (ROC-AUC)); IBM SPSS 26. Results: In the totality of patients the best prediction of 28-days-mortality was found on day-1 and day-2 (mean ROC-AUCs for all predictors/scores: 0.632 and 0.620). OI was the best predictor among the ARDS-scores (AUC=0.689 on day-1; 4-day-mean AUC = 0.625). AECC and Murray_mod had 4-day-means AUCs below 0.6. Among the 49 patients with TPTD, EVLWI (4-day-mean AUC=0.696) and OI (4-day-mean AUC=0.695) were the best predictors. AUCs were 0.789 for OI on day-1, and 0.786 for EVLWI on day-2. In binary regression analysis of patients with TPTD, EVLWI (B=-0.105; Wald=7.294; p=0.007) and OI (B=0.124; Wald=7.435; p=0.006) were independently associated with 28-days-mortality. Combining of EVLWI and OI provided ROC-AUCs of 0.801 (day-1) and 0.824 (day-2). Among the totality of patients, the use of TPTD-monitoring „per se“ and a lower SOFA-score were independently associated with a lower 28-days-mortality. Conclusions: Prognosis of ARDS-patients can be estblished within two days after intubation. The best predictors were EVLWI and OI and their combination. TPTD-monitoring „per se“ was independently associated with reduced mortality.
Suggested Citation
Wolfgang Huber & Michael Findeisen & Tobias Lahmer & Alexander Herner & Sebastian Rasch & Ulrich Mayr & Petra Hoppmann & Juliane Jaitner & Rainer Okrojek & Franz Brettner & Roland Schmid & Paul Schmid, 2020.
"Prediction of outcome in patients with ARDS: A prospective cohort study comparing ARDS-definitions and other ARDS-associated parameters, ratios and scores at intubation and over time,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0232720
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232720
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.