Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients: Why the definitions do not work

Rochelle A. Dicker, Diane J. Morabito, Jean Francois Pittet, Andre R. Campbell, Robert C. Mackersie, Fred A. Luchette, Frederick A. Moore, Christine S Cocanour, Ronald M. Stewart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The international consensus definitions for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have formed the basis for recruitment into randomized, controlled trials and, more recently, standardized the protocols for ventilatory treatment of acute lung injury. Although possibly appropriate for sepsis-induced ARDS, these criteria may not be appropriate for posttraumatic ARDS if the disease patterns are widely divergent. This study tests the hypothesis that standard ARDS criteria applied to the trauma population will capture widely disparate forms of acute lung injury and are too nonspecific to identify a population at risk for prolonged respiratory failure and associated complications. Methods: Patients with and Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 ventilated for > 12 hours were prospectively enrolled. Clinical data, including elements of cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, neurologic, and pulmonary function, were collected daily. Two hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled over a 36-month period, of whom 70 met the consensus definitions of ARDS. Patients from whom support was withdrawn within 48 hours were excluded. The remaining 61 patients were stratified into two groups on the basis of intubation (n = 12) days. Results: There was considerable disparity in severity and clinical course. A mild, limited form of ARDS was characterized by earlier onset (group 1, 2 days; group 2, 4 days; p = 0.002), fewer intubation days (7 days vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), and less severe derangements in lung mechanics. A significant difference between the two groups was also seen in systemic inflammatory response syndrome score, incidence of sepsis, and incidence of multiple organ failure. Conclusion: The criteria for ARDS, when applied to the trauma population, capture a widely disparate group and has poor specificity for identifying patients at risk. Recruitment of trauma patients for ARDS studies or preemptive ventilatory management based solely on these criteria may be ill-advised.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)522-528
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume57
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Wounds and Injuries
Acute Lung Injury
Intubation
Sepsis
Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
Lung
Injury Severity Score
Multiple Organ Failure
Incidence
Clinical Protocols
Mechanics
Respiratory Insufficiency
Patient Selection
Nervous System
Population
Randomized Controlled Trials
Kidney
Liver

Keywords

  • Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
  • At-risk patients
  • Consensus definitions
  • Controlled trials
  • Randomized
  • Trauma population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Dicker, R. A., Morabito, D. J., Pittet, J. F., Campbell, A. R., Mackersie, R. C., Luchette, F. A., ... Stewart, R. M. (2004). Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients: Why the definitions do not work. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 57(3), 522-528. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TA.0000135749.64867.06

Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients : Why the definitions do not work. / Dicker, Rochelle A.; Morabito, Diane J.; Pittet, Jean Francois; Campbell, Andre R.; Mackersie, Robert C.; Luchette, Fred A.; Moore, Frederick A.; Cocanour, Christine S; Stewart, Ronald M.

In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 57, No. 3, 09.2004, p. 522-528.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dicker, RA, Morabito, DJ, Pittet, JF, Campbell, AR, Mackersie, RC, Luchette, FA, Moore, FA, Cocanour, CS & Stewart, RM 2004, 'Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients: Why the definitions do not work', Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 522-528. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TA.0000135749.64867.06
Dicker, Rochelle A. ; Morabito, Diane J. ; Pittet, Jean Francois ; Campbell, Andre R. ; Mackersie, Robert C. ; Luchette, Fred A. ; Moore, Frederick A. ; Cocanour, Christine S ; Stewart, Ronald M. / Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients : Why the definitions do not work. In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 2004 ; Vol. 57, No. 3. pp. 522-528.
@article{975e1161daba4564aedf1299248ad0d2,
title = "Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients: Why the definitions do not work",
abstract = "Background: The international consensus definitions for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have formed the basis for recruitment into randomized, controlled trials and, more recently, standardized the protocols for ventilatory treatment of acute lung injury. Although possibly appropriate for sepsis-induced ARDS, these criteria may not be appropriate for posttraumatic ARDS if the disease patterns are widely divergent. This study tests the hypothesis that standard ARDS criteria applied to the trauma population will capture widely disparate forms of acute lung injury and are too nonspecific to identify a population at risk for prolonged respiratory failure and associated complications. Methods: Patients with and Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 ventilated for > 12 hours were prospectively enrolled. Clinical data, including elements of cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, neurologic, and pulmonary function, were collected daily. Two hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled over a 36-month period, of whom 70 met the consensus definitions of ARDS. Patients from whom support was withdrawn within 48 hours were excluded. The remaining 61 patients were stratified into two groups on the basis of intubation (n = 12) days. Results: There was considerable disparity in severity and clinical course. A mild, limited form of ARDS was characterized by earlier onset (group 1, 2 days; group 2, 4 days; p = 0.002), fewer intubation days (7 days vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), and less severe derangements in lung mechanics. A significant difference between the two groups was also seen in systemic inflammatory response syndrome score, incidence of sepsis, and incidence of multiple organ failure. Conclusion: The criteria for ARDS, when applied to the trauma population, capture a widely disparate group and has poor specificity for identifying patients at risk. Recruitment of trauma patients for ARDS studies or preemptive ventilatory management based solely on these criteria may be ill-advised.",
keywords = "Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), At-risk patients, Consensus definitions, Controlled trials, Randomized, Trauma population",
author = "Dicker, {Rochelle A.} and Morabito, {Diane J.} and Pittet, {Jean Francois} and Campbell, {Andre R.} and Mackersie, {Robert C.} and Luchette, {Fred A.} and Moore, {Frederick A.} and Cocanour, {Christine S} and Stewart, {Ronald M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/01.TA.0000135749.64867.06",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "522--528",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria in trauma patients

T2 - Why the definitions do not work

AU - Dicker, Rochelle A.

AU - Morabito, Diane J.

AU - Pittet, Jean Francois

AU - Campbell, Andre R.

AU - Mackersie, Robert C.

AU - Luchette, Fred A.

AU - Moore, Frederick A.

AU - Cocanour, Christine S

AU - Stewart, Ronald M.

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - Background: The international consensus definitions for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have formed the basis for recruitment into randomized, controlled trials and, more recently, standardized the protocols for ventilatory treatment of acute lung injury. Although possibly appropriate for sepsis-induced ARDS, these criteria may not be appropriate for posttraumatic ARDS if the disease patterns are widely divergent. This study tests the hypothesis that standard ARDS criteria applied to the trauma population will capture widely disparate forms of acute lung injury and are too nonspecific to identify a population at risk for prolonged respiratory failure and associated complications. Methods: Patients with and Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 ventilated for > 12 hours were prospectively enrolled. Clinical data, including elements of cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, neurologic, and pulmonary function, were collected daily. Two hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled over a 36-month period, of whom 70 met the consensus definitions of ARDS. Patients from whom support was withdrawn within 48 hours were excluded. The remaining 61 patients were stratified into two groups on the basis of intubation (n = 12) days. Results: There was considerable disparity in severity and clinical course. A mild, limited form of ARDS was characterized by earlier onset (group 1, 2 days; group 2, 4 days; p = 0.002), fewer intubation days (7 days vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), and less severe derangements in lung mechanics. A significant difference between the two groups was also seen in systemic inflammatory response syndrome score, incidence of sepsis, and incidence of multiple organ failure. Conclusion: The criteria for ARDS, when applied to the trauma population, capture a widely disparate group and has poor specificity for identifying patients at risk. Recruitment of trauma patients for ARDS studies or preemptive ventilatory management based solely on these criteria may be ill-advised.

AB - Background: The international consensus definitions for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have formed the basis for recruitment into randomized, controlled trials and, more recently, standardized the protocols for ventilatory treatment of acute lung injury. Although possibly appropriate for sepsis-induced ARDS, these criteria may not be appropriate for posttraumatic ARDS if the disease patterns are widely divergent. This study tests the hypothesis that standard ARDS criteria applied to the trauma population will capture widely disparate forms of acute lung injury and are too nonspecific to identify a population at risk for prolonged respiratory failure and associated complications. Methods: Patients with and Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 ventilated for > 12 hours were prospectively enrolled. Clinical data, including elements of cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, neurologic, and pulmonary function, were collected daily. Two hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled over a 36-month period, of whom 70 met the consensus definitions of ARDS. Patients from whom support was withdrawn within 48 hours were excluded. The remaining 61 patients were stratified into two groups on the basis of intubation (n = 12) days. Results: There was considerable disparity in severity and clinical course. A mild, limited form of ARDS was characterized by earlier onset (group 1, 2 days; group 2, 4 days; p = 0.002), fewer intubation days (7 days vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), and less severe derangements in lung mechanics. A significant difference between the two groups was also seen in systemic inflammatory response syndrome score, incidence of sepsis, and incidence of multiple organ failure. Conclusion: The criteria for ARDS, when applied to the trauma population, capture a widely disparate group and has poor specificity for identifying patients at risk. Recruitment of trauma patients for ARDS studies or preemptive ventilatory management based solely on these criteria may be ill-advised.

KW - Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

KW - At-risk patients

KW - Consensus definitions

KW - Controlled trials

KW - Randomized

KW - Trauma population

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4744353796&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4744353796&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.TA.0000135749.64867.06

DO - 10.1097/01.TA.0000135749.64867.06

M3 - Article

C2 - 15454797

AN - SCOPUS:4744353796

VL - 57

SP - 522

EP - 528

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 3

ER -