Dataset Information

Impact of Clinician Recognition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Evidenced-Based Interventions in the Medical ICU.

ABSTRACT: Acute respiratory distress syndrome is underrecognized in the ICU, but it remains uncertain if acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition affects evidence-based acute respiratory distress syndrome care in the modern era. We sought to determine the rate of clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome in an academic medical ICU and understand how clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome affects clinical care and patient-centered outcomes.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting

Single medical ICU at an academic tertiary-care hospital.

Patients

Nine hundred seventy-seven critically ill adults (381 with expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome) enrolled from 2006 to 2015.

Interventions

Clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome was identified using an electronic keyword search of clinical notes in the electronic health record. We assessed the classification performance of clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome for identifying expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome. We also compared differences in ventilator settings, diuretic prescriptions, and cumulative fluid balance between clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome and unrecognized acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Measurements and main results

Overall, clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome had a sensitivity of 47.5%, specificity 91.1%, positive predictive value 77.4%, and negative predictive value 73.1% for expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among the 381 expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome cases, we did not observe any differences in ventilator tidal volumes between clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome and unrecognized acute respiratory distress syndrome, but clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had a more negative cumulative fluid balance (mean difference, -781 mL; 95% CI, [-1,846 to +283]) and were more likely to receive diuretics (49.3% vs 35.7%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in mortality, ICU length of stay, or ventilator-free days.

Conclusions

Acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition was low in this single-center study. Although acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition was not associated with lower ventilator volumes, it was associated with differences in behaviors related to fluid management. These findings have implications for the design of future studies promoting evidence-based acute respiratory distress syndrome interventions in the ICU.

SUBMITTER: Kerchberger VE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8263322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe acute respiratory distress syndrome is common in critically ill patients. Recognition is crucial because acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with a high mortality rate, and low tidal volume ventilation improves mortality. However, acute respiratory distress syndrome often goes unrecognized. Risk factors for under-recognition and trends over time have not been fully described.DesignRetrospective chart review of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from a prospective cohort study of critically ill patients. For each patient's ICU stay, we searched the chart for terms that indicated that acute respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed, in the differential diagnosis, or treated with low tidal volume ventilation.SettingICUs at a tertiary hospital at the University of California, San Francisco between 2008 and 2016.PatientsCritically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAcute respiratory distress syndrome was recognized in 70% of patients, and recognition increased from 60% in 2008-2009 to 92% in 2016 (p = 0.004). Use of tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg also increased (p < 0.001) from 20% to 92%. Increased acute respiratory distress syndrome severity (p = 0.01) and vasopressor use (p = 0.04) were associated with greater recognition. Clinician diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome and inclusion of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the differential diagnosis were associated with tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg (51% use of tidal volume ≤ 6.5 mL/kg if acute respiratory distress syndrome recognized vs 15% if not recognized; p = 0.002). Diagnosing acute respiratory distress syndrome was associated with lower tidal volume in multivariate analysis.ConclusionsAlthough acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition and low tidal volume ventilation use have increased over time, they remain less than universal. Clinician recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with both systemic and respiratory severity of illness and is also associated with use of low tidal volume ventilation.

Project description:ImportanceDespite its efficacy, low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) remains severely underutilized for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Physician under-recognition of ARDS is a significant barrier to LTVV use. We propose a computational method that addresses some of the limitations of the current approaches to automated measurement of whether ARDS is recognized by physicians.ObjectiveTo quantify patient and physician factors affecting physicians' tidal volume selection and to build a computational model of physician recognition of ARDS that accounts for these factors.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, electronic health record data were collected for 361 ARDS patients and 388 non-ARDS hypoxemic (control) patients in nine adult intensive care units at four hospitals between June 24 and December 31, 2013.MethodsStandardized tidal volumes (mL/kg predicted body weight) were chosen as a proxy for physician decision-making behavior. Using data-science approaches, we quantified the effect of eight factors (six severity of illness, two physician behaviors) on selected standardized tidal volumes in ARDS and control patients. Significant factors were incorporated in computational behavioral models of physician recognition of ARDS.ResultsHypoxemia severity and ARDS documentation in physicians' notes were associated with lower standardized tidal volumes in the ARDS cohort. Greater patient height was associated with lower standardized tidal volumes (which is already normalized for height) in both ARDS and control patients. The recognition model yielded a mean (99% confidence interval) physician recognition of ARDS of 22% (9%-42%) for mild, 34% (19%-49%) for moderate, and 67% (41%-100%) for severe ARDS.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patient characteristics and physician behaviors were demonstrated to be associated with differences in ventilator management in both ARDS and control patients. Our model of physician ARDS recognition measurement accounts for these clinical variables, providing an electronic approach that moves beyond relying on chart documentation or resource intensive approaches.