Dataset Information

Differences between Patients in Whom Physicians Agree and Disagree about the Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Because the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has only moderate reliability, physicians disagree about the diagnosis of ARDS in some patients. Understanding the clinical differences between patients with agreement and disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS may provide insight into the epidemiology and pathophysiology of this syndrome, and inform strategies to improve the reliability of ARDS diagnosis.

Objectives

To characterize patients with diagnostic disagreement about ARDS among critical-care-trained physicians and compare them with patients with a consensus that ARDS developed.

Methods

Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (arterial oxygen tension/pressure [Pa_O₂]/fraction of inspired oxygen [Fi_O₂] < 300 during invasive mechanical ventilation) were independently reviewed for ARDS by multiple critical-care physicians and categorized as consensus-ARDS, disagreement about the diagnosis, or no ARDS.

Results

Among 738 patients reviewed, 110 (15%) had consensus-ARDS, 100 (14%) had disagreement, and 528 (72%) did not have ARDS. ARDS diagnosis rates ranged from 9% to 47% across clinicians. Patients with disagreement had baseline comorbidity rates similar to those of patients with consensus-ARDS, but lower rates of ARDS risk factors and less severe measures of lung injury. Mean days of severe hypoxemia (Pa_O₂/Fi_O₂ < 100) were 3.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-3.9), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.4), and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) among patients with consensus-ARDS, disagreement, and no ARDS, respectively. Hospital mortality was 37% (95% CI, 28-46%), 35% (95% CI, 26-44%), and 19% (95% CI, 15-22%) across groups. Simple combinations of specific ARDS risk factors and lowest Pa_O₂/Fi_O₂ value could effectively discriminate patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92). For example, 63% of patients with pneumonia, shock, and Pa_O₂/Fi_O₂ < 110 had consensus-ARDS, whereas 100% of patients without pneumonia or shock and Pa_O₂/Fi_O₂ > 180 did not have ARDS.

Conclusions

Disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS is common and can be partly explained by the difficulty of dichotomizing patients along a continuous spectrum of ARDS manifestations. Considering both the presence of key ARDS risk factors and hypoxemia severity can help guide clinicians in identifying patients with diagnosis of ARDS agreed upon by a consensus of physicians.

SUBMITTER: Sjoding MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6376946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a potentially devastating refractory hypoxemic illness with multi-organ involvement. Although several randomised controlled trials into ventilator and fluid management strategies have provided level 1 evidence to guide supportive therapy, there are few, established guidelines on how to manage patients with ARDS. In addition, and despite their continued use, pharmacotherapies for ARDS disease modulation have no proven benefit in improving mortality. Little is known however about the variability in diagnostic and treatment practices across the United Kingdom (UK). The aim of this survey, therefore, was to assess the use of diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies for ARDS in critical care units across the UK.MethodsThe survey questionnaire was developed and internally piloted at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. Following ethical approval from University of Southampton Ethics and Research Committee, a link to an online survey engine (Survey Monkey) was then placed on the Intensive Care Society (UK) website. Fellows of The Intensive Care Society were subsequently personally approached via e-mail to encourage participation. The survey was conducted over a period of 3 months.ResultsThe survey received 191 responses from 125 critical care units, accounting for 11% of all registered intensive care physicians at The Intensive Care Society. The majority of the responses were from physicians managing general intensive care units (82%) and 34% of respondents preferred the American European Consensus Criteria for ARDS. There was a perceived decline in both incidence and mortality in ARDS. Primary ventilation strategies were based on ARDSnet protocols, though frequent deviations from ARDSnet positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) recommendations (51%) were described. The majority of respondents set permissive blood gas targets (hypoxia (92%), hypercapnia (58%) and pH (90%)). The routine use of pharmacological agents is rare. Neuromuscular blockers and corticosteroids are considered occasionally and on a case-by-case basis. Routine (58%) or late (64%) tracheostomy was preferred to early tracheostomy insertion. Few centres offered routine follow-up or dedicated rehabilitation programmes following hospital discharge.ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in the diagnostic and management strategies employed for patients with ARDS across the UK. National and/or international guidelines may help to improve standardisation in the management of ARDS.