scholarly journals Maintenance of low driving pressure in patients with early acute respiratory distress syndrome significantly affects outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-Chun Chang ◽  
Chung-Han Ho ◽  
Shu-Chen Kung ◽  
Wan-Lin Chen ◽  
Ching-Min Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Adjusted Hazard Ratio ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Protective Ventilation Strategy

Abstract Background Driving pressure (∆P) is an important factor that predicts mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We test the hypothesis that serial changes in daily ΔP rather than Day 1 ΔP would better predict outcomes of patients with ARDS. Methods This retrospective cohort study enrolled patients admitted to five intensive care units (ICUs) at a medical center in Taiwan between March 2009 and January 2018 who met the criteria for ARDS and received the lung-protective ventilation strategy. ∆P was recorded daily for 3 consecutive days after the diagnosis of ARDS, and its correlation with 60-day survival was analyzed. Results A total of 224 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The overall ICU and 60-day survival rates were 52.7% and 47.3%, respectively. ∆P on Days 1, 2, and 3 was significantly lower in the survival group than in the nonsurvival group (13.8 ± 3.4 vs. 14.8 ± 3.7, p = 0.0322, 14 ± 3.2 vs. 15 ± 3.5, p = 0.0194, 13.6 ± 3.2 vs. 15.1 ± 3.4, p = 0.0014, respectively). The patients were divided into four groups according to the daily changes in ∆P, namely, the low ∆P group (Day 1 ∆P < 14 cmH2O and Day 3 ∆P < 14 cmH2O), decrement group (Day 1 ∆P ≥ 14 cmH2O and Day 3 ∆P < 14 cmH2O), high ∆P group (Day 1 ∆P ≥ 14 cmH2O and Day 3 ∆P ≥ 14 cmH2O), and increment group (Day 1 ∆P < 14 cmH2O and Day 3 ∆P ≥ 14 cmH2O). The 60-day survival significantly differed among the four groups (log-rank test, p = 0.0271). Compared with the low ΔP group, patients in the decrement group did not have lower 60-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31–1.68; p = 0.4448), while patients in the increment group had significantly lower 60-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.11–3.44; p = 0.0198). Conclusions Daily ∆P remains an important predicting factor for survival in patients with ARDS. Serial changes in daily ΔP might be more informative than a single Day 1 ΔP value in predicting survival of patients with ARDS.

scholarly journals Driving pressure y mortalidad en el síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Isabel de la Calle Gil ◽  
Rosalía Navarro Casado ◽  
Raquel García Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Alveolar Recruitment ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Current Guidelines

Las actuales guías de manejo del síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) recomiendan una ventilación protectora: volumen corriente bajo, presión positiva al final de la espiración (PEEP) adecuada y maniobras de reclutamiento alveolar. Sin embargo, estudios recientes han mostrado que la driving pressure podría ser la variable que mejor se correlaciona con la supervivencia en pacientes con SDRA. ABSTRACT Driving pressure and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome Current guidelines for ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) recommend lung-protective ventilation: use of low tidal volumes, appropiate  positive end-expiratory pressure and alveolar recruitment maneuvers. However, recent studies have shown that driving pressure could be the variable that best correlated with survival in patients with ARDS.

scholarly journals Alternative and Natural Therapies for Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipul J. Patel ◽  
Sreeja Biswas Roy ◽  
Hiren J. Mehta ◽  
Myungsoo Joo ◽  
Ruxana T. Sadikot
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Acute Lung Injury ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Experimental Models ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Related Factor ◽  
Made In

Introduction. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a complex clinical syndrome characterized by acute inflammation, microvascular damage, and increased pulmonary vascular and epithelial permeability, frequently resulting in acute respiratory failure and death. Current best practice for ARDS involves “lung-protective ventilation,” which entails low tidal volumes and limiting the plateau pressures in mechanically ventilated patients. Although considerable progress has been made in understanding the pathogenesis of ARDS, little progress has been made in the development of specific therapies to combat injury and inflammation. Areas Covered. In recent years, several natural products have been studied in experimental models and have been shown to inhibit multiple inflammatory pathways associated with acute lung injury and ARDS at a molecular level. Because of the pleiotropic effects of these agents, many of them also activate antioxidant pathways through nuclear factor erythroid-related factor 2, thereby targeting multiple pathways. Several of these agents are prescribed for treatment of inflammatory conditions in the Asian subcontinent and have shown to be relatively safe. Expert Commentary. Here we review natural remedies shown to attenuate lung injury and inflammation in experimental models. Translational human studies in patients with ARDS may facilitate treatment of this devastating disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document