scholarly journals Return to work and lost earnings after acute respiratory distress syndrome: a 5-year prospective, longitudinal study of long-term survivors

Thorax ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biren B Kamdar ◽  
Kristin A Sepulveda ◽  
Alexandra Chong ◽  
Robert K Lord ◽  
Victor D Dinglas ◽  
...  

BackgroundDelayed return to work is common after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but has undergone little detailed evaluation. We examined factors associated with the timing of return to work after ARDS, along with lost earnings and shifts in healthcare coverage.MethodsFive-year, multisite prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 138 2-year ARDS survivors hospitalised between 2004 and 2007. Employment and healthcare coverage were collected via structured interview. Predictors of time to return to work were evaluated using Fine and Grey regression analysis. Lost earnings were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics data.ResultsSixty-seven (49%) of the 138 2-year survivors were employed prior to ARDS. Among 64 5-year survivors, 20 (31%) never returned to work across 5-year follow-up. Predictors of delayed return to work (HR (95% CI)) included baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.77 (0.59 to 0.99) per point; p=0.04), mechanical ventilation duration (0.67 (0.55 to 0.82) per day up to 5 days; p<0.001) and discharge to a healthcare facility (0.49 (0.26 to 0.93); p=0.03). Forty-nine of 64 (77%) 5-year survivors incurred lost earnings, with average (SD) losses ranging from US$38 354 (21,533) to US$43 510 (25,753) per person per year. Jobless, non-retired survivors experienced a 33% decrease in private health insurance and concomitant 37% rise in government-funded coverage.ConclusionsAcross 5-year follow-up, nearly one-third of previously employed ARDS survivors never returned to work. Delayed return to work was associated with patient-related and intensive care unit/hospital-related factors, substantial lost earnings and a marked rise in government-funded healthcare coverage. These important consequences emphasise the need to design and evaluate vocation-based interventions to assist ARDS survivors return to work.

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. S400-S408
Author(s):  
Zongsheng Wu ◽  
Yao Liu ◽  
Jingyuan Xu ◽  
Jianfeng Xie ◽  
Shi Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Mechanical ventilation is crucial for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients and diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in ARDS patients is challenging. Hence, an effective model to predict VAP in ARDS is urgently needed. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of patient-level data from the Early versus Delayed Enteral Nutrition (EDEN) of ARDSNet randomized controlled trials. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis established a predictive model, incorporating characteristics selected by systematic review and univariate analyses. The model’s discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness were assessed using the C-index, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results Of the 1000 unique patients enrolled in the EDEN trials, 70 (7%) had ARDS complicated with VAP. Mechanical ventilation duration and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were significantly longer in the VAP group than non-VAP group (P &lt; .001 for both) but the 60-day mortality was comparable. Use of neuromuscular blocking agents, severe ARDS, admission for unscheduled surgery, and trauma as primary ARDS causes were independent risk factors for VAP. The area under the curve of the model was .744, and model fit was acceptable (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .185). The calibration curve indicated that the model had proper discrimination and good calibration. DCA showed that the VAP prediction nomogram was clinically useful when an intervention was decided at a VAP probability threshold between 1% and 61%. Conclusions The prediction nomogram for VAP development in ARDS patients can be applied after ICU admission, using available variables. Potential clinical benefits of using this model deserve further assessment.


Radiology ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 210 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujal R. Desai ◽  
Athol U. Wells ◽  
Michael B. Rubens ◽  
Timothy W. Evans ◽  
David M. Hansell

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby P. Mayer ◽  
Jamie L. Sturgill ◽  
Anna G. Kalema ◽  
Melissa K. Soper ◽  
Sherif M. Seif ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In this case report, we describe the trajectory of recovery of a young, healthy patient diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome. The purpose of this case report is to highlight the potential role of intensive care unit recovery or follow-up clinics for patients surviving acute hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019. Case presentation Our patient was a 27-year-old Caucasian woman with a past medical history of asthma transferred from a community hospital to our medical intensive care unit for acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to bilateral pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen, 180). On day 2 of her intensive care unit admission, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Her clinical status gradually improved, and she was extubated on intensive care unit day 5. She had a negative test result for coronavirus disease 2019 twice with repeated reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction before being discharged to home after 10 days in the intensive care unit. Two weeks after intensive care unit discharge, the patient returned to our outpatient intensive care unit recovery clinic. At follow-up, the patient endorsed significant fatigue and exhaustion with difficulty walking, minor issues with sleep disruption, and periods of memory loss. She scored 10/12 on the short performance physical battery, indicating good physical function. She did not have signs of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder through self-report questionnaires. Clinically, she was considered at low risk of developing post–intensive care syndrome, but she required follow-up services to assist in navigating the healthcare system, addressing remaining symptoms, and promoting return to her pre–coronavirus disease 2019 societal role. Conclusion We present this case report to suggest that patients surviving coronavirus disease 2019 with subsequent development of acute respiratory distress syndrome will require more intense intensive care unit recovery follow-up. Patients with a higher degree of acute illness who also have pre-existing comorbidities and those of older age who survive mechanical ventilation for coronavirus disease 2019 will require substantial post–intensive care unit care to mitigate and treat post–intensive care syndrome, promote reintegration into the community, and improve quality of life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document