Abstract
Purpose
To improve the outcome of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), one needs to identify potentially modifiable factors associated with mortality.
Methods
The large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across five continents. A pre-specified secondary aim was to examine the factors associated with outcome. Analyses were restricted to patients (93.1 %) fulfilling ARDS criteria on day 1–2 who received invasive mechanical ventilation.
Results
2377 patients were included in the analysis. Potentially modifiable factors associated with increased hospital mortality in multivariable analyses include lower PEEP, higher peak inspiratory, plateau, and driving pressures, and increased respiratory rate. The impact of tidal volume on outcome was unclear. Having fewer ICU beds was also associated with higher hospital mortality. Non-modifiable factors associated with worsened outcome from ARDS included older age, active neoplasm, hematologic neoplasm, and chronic liver failure. Severity of illness indices including lower pH, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and higher non-pulmonary SOFA score were associated with poorer outcome. Of the 578 (24.3 %) patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision, 498 (86.0 %) died in hospital. Factors associated with increased likelihood of limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision included older age, immunosuppression, neoplasia, lower pH and increased non-pulmonary SOFA scores.
Conclusions
Higher PEEP, lower peak, plateau, and driving pressures, and lower respiratory rate are associated with improved survival from ARDS.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by acute inflammatory lung injury, associated with increased pulmonary vascular permeability, increased lung weight, and loss of aerated lung tissue [1].
The large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure (LUNG SAFE) was recently undertaken in 459 intensive care units (ICUs) in 50 countries in five continents [2]. The results showed that ARDS continues to represent a global public health problem, occurring in 10 % of patients admitted to ICUs. ARDS was under-recognized by clinicians, while the use of contemporary evidence-based ventilatory strategies and adjuncts was lower than expected. Of most concern, ARDS continues to confer a high mortality, with 40 % of patients with ARDS dying in hospital. The wide geographic spread of participating ICUs, the large patient sample size, and the use of the Berlin criteria to classify patients independent of clinician recognition are important strengths of this study [2].
A key pre-specified secondary aim of the LUNG SAFE study was to examine the factors associated with outcomes in patients with ARDS in the era of the Berlin definition of ARDS. We were particularly interested in identifying potentially modifiable risk factors, such as those relating to patient management. In particular, we wished to understand the relationship between ventilator-related parameters and patient outcome from ARDS. In addition, we wished to determine the contribution of demographic factors, ARDS risk factors, and illness severity to patient outcome, as well as the factors associated with decisions to limit care.
Methods and materials
Study design
The detailed methods and protocol have been published elsewhere [2]. In brief, LUNG SAFE was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study, with a 4-week enrollment window in the winter season [2]. The study, funded by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), was endorsed by multiple national societies/networks (Appendix 1). All participating ICUs obtained ethics committee approval, and either patient consent or ethics committee waiver of consent. National coordinators (Appendix 1) and site investigators (Appendix 2) were responsible for obtaining ethics committee approval and for ensuring data integrity and validity.
Patients, study design, and data collection
Inclusion criteria were admission to a study ICU (including ICU transfers) within the 4-week enrollment window and receipt of invasive or noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Exclusion criteria were age less than 16 years or inability to obtain informed consent, where required. Patients were classified as having ARDS on the basis of whether or not they fulfilled all of the Berlin criteria rather than by clinician determination, as previously described [2]. To ensure a more homogenous dataset, we restricted subsequent analyses to the large subset of patients (93.1 %) that fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or day 2 following the onset of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and who received invasive mechanical ventilation (Fig. 1). All data were recorded for each patient at the same time each day within participating ICUs, normally as close as possible to 10 a.m. each day. Data on ventilatory settings were recorded simultaneously with arterial blood gas analysis.
Data definitions
We defined ARDS severity according to the Berlin definition: mild (PaO2/FiO2 ratio 201–300 mmHg), moderate (PaO2/FiO2 ratio 101–200 mmHg), and severe (PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤100 mmHg). ICU and hospital survival were evaluated at ICU or hospital discharge, or at day 90, whichever occurred first.
Patients were considered to have a pulmonary etiology of their ARDS if they had one or more pulmonary risk factors (e.g., pneumonia, aspiration, lung contusion, inhalation injury), and to have an extrapulmonary etiology if they had one or more non-pulmonary risk factors (e.g., systemic sepsis, burn, blood transfusion). Patients with both types of risk factors were considered as a separate category.
Driving pressure was defined as plateau pressure minus PEEP, and was calculated only in patients who had no evidence for spontaneous ventilation, i.e., where set and measured respiratory rates were equal (N = 742 patients).
Data management and statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics included proportions for categorical and mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) for continuous variables. The amount of missing data was low as previously reported [2], and no assumptions were made for missing data. Proportions were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests, and continuous variables were compared using T-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test, as appropriate. Shapiro–Wilks test was used to assess normality in data distribution.
In each ARDS severity category (mild, moderate, severe), we estimated the relative risk (RR) of ICU and hospital mortality stratifying the study sample according tidal volume (<8 ml/kg, ≥8 ml/kg), PEEP (<12 cmH2O, ≥12 cmH2O), driving pressure (<14 cmH2O, ≥14 cmH2O), and plateau pressure (<25 cmH2O, ≥25 cmH2O) measured at ARDS onset. These thresholds were each defined a priori on the basis of previous studies [3–5] or, in the case of PEEP, a consensus decision.
To identify predictors of hospital and ICU mortality and limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision during hospital stay, we conducted a bivariable analysis for each demographic factor, ARDS risk factor, patients’ comorbidity, illness severity, and management factor measured on the day of ARDS onset and ICU organizational factors. A stepwise regression approach with significance alpha levels of 0.05 (both for entry and retention) was used to establish a set of independent variables associated with mortality. Stepwise regression is an iterative process whereby we checked the statistical significance of all variables at each stage and the process ends when none of the effects outside the model has an F statistic significant at the entry probability level and every effect in the model is significant at the retention probability level. Results are shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).
A robust locally weighted scatter plot smoothing (LOWESS) method was applied to investigate the relationship between the proportion of deaths (in ICU and in hospital) and plateau pressure, driving pressure, peak inspiratory pressure, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio on the first day of ARDS. The smoothing curves used a bandwidth of 0.66, a polynomial regression with 1 degree of freedom, and a tricubic weight function so that observations furthest from the point of interest were assigned the least weight.
All P-values were two-sided, with P-values less than 0.05 considered as statistically significant. The study protocol and case report form are included in Appendix 3. Statistical analyses were performed with R, version 3.0.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org) and SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Results
As previously reported [2], 459 participating ICUs from 50 countries enrolled 4499 patients with AHRF to the LUNG SAFE study. This analysis is confined to the 2377 patients invasively ventilated and with ARDS diagnosed on day 1 (n = 2243) or day 2 (n = 134) following development of AHRF (Fig. 1). In-hospital mortality was 35 % in patients with mild ARDS, 40 % in moderate ARDS, and 46 % in severe ARDS.
Factors contributing to outcome from ARDS
Table 1 reports the comparison of ARDS survivors (59.6 %) to non-survivors (40.4 %) at hospital discharge. The range of tidal volumes used was relatively narrow (Fig. e1) and the mean tidal volume used did not differ between survivors and non-survivors (Table 1). The unadjusted impact of ventilation-related variables in each severity category of ARDS is shown in Fig. 2. Hospital mortality risk was similar in patients with lower tidal volume [<8 cmH2O ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW)] compared to those with higher tidal volume (Fig. 2a). In patients with moderate ARDS, patients with a lower PEEP (<12 cmH2O) had a risk of hospital mortality 26 % greater than those observed in patients with higher PEEP [RR 1.26 (95 % CI 1.00–1.58)] (Fig. 2b). This was not seen in mild or severe ARDS. Lower driving pressure (<14 cmH2O) was associated with a decreased risk of hospital mortality in patients with moderate [RR 0.75 (95 % CI 0.59–0.96)] and severe [RR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.47–0.95)] ARDS, respectively (Fig. 2c). Lower plateau pressure (<25 cmH2O) was associated with a decreased risk of hospital mortality in patients with severe ARDS [RR 0.69 (95 % CI 0.49–0.97)] (Fig. 2d). The relationships between tidal volume, PEEP, driving and plateau pressures and ICU mortality are shown in Fig. e2.
The factors included in the bivariable analyses for hospital mortality are listed in Table e1. In subsequent multivariate analyses, older age, active neoplasm, hematologic neoplasm, immunosuppression, and chronic liver failure were associated with increased hospital mortality (Table 2). Outcome was independent of pulmonary versus extrapulmonary etiology of ARDS (Table e1). Illness severity factors associated with worse outcome comprised lower pH, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and higher non-pulmonary sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (Table 2). Ventilation parameters including lower respiratory rate, higher PEEP, and lower peak inspiratory pressure were each associated with decreased hospital mortality. Tidal volume was not associated with outcome. A greater number of ICU beds was associated with improved hospital survival, but not ICU survival (Table e2). Similar findings were seen in analyses of factors associated with 28-day and with ICU survival (Tables e2 and e3). In multivariate analyses confined to patients who had “true” plateau pressure measured, i.e., those in whom there was no evidence for spontaneous ventilation (N = 742 patients), both higher driving pressure and higher plateau pressure were independently associated with worse hospital survival (Tables e4 and e5).
Patients with a driving pressure of equal to or greater than the median value 14 cmH2O on day 1 of ARDS criteria had a higher mortality (P = 0.0124, log-rank test) (Fig. e3a). Patients with a plateau pressure equal to or greater than the median value of 23 cmH2O on day 1 of ARDS criteria had a higher mortality (P = 0.0024, log-rank test) (Fig. e3b). There was no difference in survival in patients with a tidal volume of equal to or greater than the median value of 7.1 ml/kg/PBW (Fig. e3c).
Relationship between ventilator variables and outcome
Figure 3 shows the relationship between ventilation parameters on the first day of ARDS and the proportion of in-hospital deaths using LOWESS plots. The slope of the curves for risk of mortality increase at plateau pressures above 20 cmH2O and again above 30 cmH2O (Figs. 3a and e4a). For plateau pressures below 20 cmH2O, there was no clear relationship with hospital or ICU mortality. Mortality was relatively flat up to a driving pressure of 10 cmH2O; above this value, mortality increased relatively linearly with increasing driving pressure (Figs. 3b and e4b). In contrast, while the slope of the curve of peak inspiratory pressure versus mortality increased at values over 40 cmH2O, the curve did not flatten out below this value (Figs. 3c and e4c). For PaO2/FiO2 ratio, the relationship with mortality risk was relatively flat at ratios above 150 mmHg, but mortality risk increased at lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios (Figs. 3d and e4d).
Limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures
Of the 578 (24.3 %) patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision, 7 patients (1.2 %) had this decision in place prior to develo** ARDS, while in 525 (90.8 %) patients, this decision was made at or after the development of ARDS. In 46 (8.0 %) patients, the timing of the decision was unclear (Fig. e5). Six of the seven patients with prior limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision survived to hospital discharge. Overall, 498 (86 %) of patient with orders limiting care died in hospital.
In a bivariate analysis, increased age, immunosuppression, the presence of active or hematologic neoplasm, and chronic liver failure were each associated with increased likelihood of limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures (Table 3). Disease severity factors including lower pH and higher adjusted non-pulmonary SOFA score were also associated with limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures.
Discussion
The LUNG SAFE study is the largest epidemiologic study of patients with ARDS and acute hypoxic respiratory failure to date, with data on patients admitted to 459 ICUs in 50 countries across five continents. We found that older patient age, presence of neoplastic disease, and severity of illness markers such as lower pH, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and higher non-pulmonary SOFA scores were associated with worsened patient outcome. Potentially modifiable factors associated with increased hospital mortality in multivariable analyses include lower PEEP, higher peak inspiratory, plateau, and driving pressures, increased respiratory rate, and lower number of ICU beds.
Factors contributing to outcome from ARDS
Our finding that older age was independently associated with worse outcome is in accord with multiple prior studies [6–8], and with prognosis scores such as the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS). The presence of risk factors such as active neoplasm, hematologic neoplasm, and chronic liver failure independently worsened outcome, and are largely consistent with prior studies [8, 9]. Severity of illness factors associated with worse outcome included lower pH, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and increasing non-pulmonary SOFA score [8]. The lack of association between risk factor type, i.e., pulmonary versus extrapulmonary, and outcome from ARDS contrasts with some previous smaller studies [10], but is consistent with a prior meta-analysis [11].
We found that key aspects of ventilator management were associated with patient outcome. The use of higher PEEP in patients with moderate or severe ARDS was independently associated with improved hospital survival, supporting prior findings from an individual patient data meta-analysis [12], as well as a preponderance of preclinical evidence suggesting benefits with higher PEEP particularly in more severe ARDS.
The lack of a relationship between tidal volume and outcome in our patients likely reflects the relatively limited range of tidal volumes used, which was concentrated in a range around a median of 7.1 ml/kg. In particular, the use of tidal volumes below 6 or above 10 ml/kg PBW was relatively low in these patients. In addition, there may be a potential confounding effect of the use of lower tidal volumes in more severely ill patients, which is difficult to fully dissect out in an observational dataset such as this. Our data does not imply that tidal volume is unimportant, but rather suggests the widespread adoption of lower tidal volume ventilation. We know from large well-conducted prospective randomized clinical trials that reducing tidal volume is a key component of protective lung ventilation and saves lives [3, 13].
The association between peak, plateau, and driving pressures and both hospital and ICU outcome also confirms prior findings [14]. The finding of a positive association between lower respiratory rate and patient outcome is a novel finding, and is supported by prior experimental data [15, 16]. This finding may support the hypothesis that energy transfer to the lung is an important contributor to ventilator-induced lung injury [17, 18].
Relationships between ventilatory parameters and outcome
The LOWESS curve of the relationship between plateau pressure and the risk of ICU and hospital death did appear to flatten out below 20 cmH2O. This finding contrasts with that of Hager et al., who did not find a lower “safe” plateau pressure [19]. In relation to driving pressure, the proportion of deaths increased relatively linearly at pressures above 10 cmH2O, while the curve is flat below this value. These findings are suggestive of the potential utility of this index as a prognostic index in non-trial, “real world” patients [14]. It is important to note that we classified driving pressure and plateau pressures as potentially modifiable but they also contain an important element that depends on the patient’s lung injury severity. The inflection in the relationship between PaO2/FiO2 ratio and mortality observed at values around 120–150 mmHg supports the empirical decisions of selecting these value for enrollment in clinical trials [20] or secondary analyses [21].
The finding that lower ICU bed number was associated with higher hospital, but not ICU, mortality is of concern. It suggests that ICU organizational factors and/or resource constraints may impact on ICU discharge decisions, and hence on patient outcome. It supports older studies demonstrating that patients discharged from ICU at times of high bed occupancy are sicker and have had a shorter ICU stay than patients discharged when more beds were available [22]. Prior studies also demonstrate that a significant proportion of patients that die in hospital following ICU discharge were expected to live at the time of ICU discharge [23, 24].
Limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures
The majority of decisions to limit care were made after development of ARDS. Interestingly, survival in the small proportion of patient that had a limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision prior to develo** ARDS was surprisingly high. Less surprising was the fact that 86 % of patients in whom decisions to limit care were made after the development of ARDS died in hospital. Increased age and the presence of active or hematologic neoplasm, immune suppression, chronic liver failure, and indices of greater illness severity were associated with limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures, consistent with prior findings [25]. Overall, there were similarities between the factors associated with patient outcome and those associated with limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures. This may be consistent with the fact that death in the ICU not infrequently occurs in the context of decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies or measures as a result of perceived futility [26, 27].
Limitations
This study has a number of limitations. Our focus on winter months, while allowing us to examine the burden of ARDS during the same season across the globe, and our convenience sample approach may be prone to selection biases that may limit generalizability in regard to factors associated with ARDS outcome. Similar to other epidemiologic studies, we did not have access to the source data for the patients in the enrolling ICUs, and it is possible that some patients with hypoxemia, and thus ARDS, in participating centers were missed. It is important to stress, however, that ICUs were participating whether or not they identified any patient having ARDS and that the diagnosis of ARDS was not based on chart records. In addition, enrollment of patients with ARDS from participating ICUs met expectations based on their recorded 2013 admission rates, while data from lower recruiting ICUs were not different from higher enrolling ICUs, suggesting the absence of reporting biases. While we classified ventilator-related variables as potentially modifiable, it is important to acknowledge that non-modifiable factors, particularly disease severity, also play an important role in ventilator settings. In addition, we did not ask investigators how they measured total PEEP, and it is possible that total PEEP was not measured after end-expiratory occlusion in some patients, which may have led to an overestimation of plateau and driving pressure in some patients. To ensure data quality, we instituted a robust data quality control program in which all centers were requested to verify data that appeared inconsistent or erroneous. The absence of data on other aspects of ICU management, e.g., fluid therapy, may limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Lastly, our assumptions that patients discharged from the hospital before day 28 were alive at that time point and that inpatients at day 90 survived to hospital discharge are further limitations.
Conclusions
In this prospective study carried out in ICUs across 50 countries, potentially modifiable factors associated with increased hospital mortality in multivariable analyses include lower PEEP, higher peak inspiratory, plateau and driving pressures, increased respiratory rate, and a lower number of ICU beds. These findings provide insight into current management practices in relation to ARDS and relationships between modifiable and non-modifiable factors and patient outcome from ARDS.
Change history
14 November 2017
Correction to: Intensive Care Med (2016) 42:1865–1876 DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4571-5
References
Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, Camporota L, Slutsky AS (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307:2526–2533
Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, Gattinoni L, van Haren F, Larsson A, McAuley DF, Ranieri M, Rubenfeld G, Thompson BT, Wrigge H, Slutsky AS, Pesenti A, LUNG SAFE Investigators, ESICM Trials Group (2016) Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA 315:788–800
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (2000) Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 342:1301–1308
Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa EL, Schoenfeld DA, Stewart TE, Briel M, Talmor D, Mercat A, Richard JC, Carvalho CR, Brower RG (2015) Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 372:747–755
Fanelli V, Ranieri MV, Mancebo J, Moerer O, Quintel M, Morley S, Moran I, Parrilla F, Costamagna A, Gaudiosi M, Combes A (2016) Feasibility and safety of low-flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress sindrome. Crit Care 20:36
Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD (2005) Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 353:1685–1693
Rubenfeld GD, Herridge MS (2007) Epidemiology and outcomes of acute lung injury. Chest 131:554–562
Brun-Buisson C, Minelli C, Bertolini G, Brazzi L, Pimentel J, Lewandowski K, Bion J, Romand JA, Villar J, Thorsteinsson A, Damas P, Armaganidis A, Lemaire F (2004) Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units. Results from the ALIVE study. Intensive Care Med 30:51–61
Gong MN, Thompson BT, Williams P, Pothier L, Boyce PD, Christiani DC (2005) Clinical predictors of and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: potential role of red cell transfusion. Crit Care Med 33:1191–1198
Kim SJ, Oh BJ, Lee JS, Lim CM, Shim TS, Lee SD, Kim WS, Kim DS, Kim WD, Koh Y (2004) Recovery from lung injury in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome: difference between pulmonary and extrapulmonary subtypes. Intensive Care Med 30:1960–1963
Agarwal R, Srinivas R, Nath A, **dal SK (2008) Is the mortality higher in the pulmonary vs the extrapulmonary ARDS? A meta analysis. Chest 133:1463–1473
Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, Slutsky AS, Pullenayegum E, Zhou Q, Cook D, Brochard L, Richard JC, Lamontagne F, Bhatnagar N, Stewart TE, Guyatt G (2010) Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 303:865–873
Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Fihlo G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR (1998) Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 338:347–354
Kregenow DA, Rubenfeld GD, Hudson LD, Swenson ER (2006) Hypercapnic acidosis and mortality in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 34:1–7
Vaporidi K, Voloudakis G, Priniannakis G, Kondili E, Koutsopoulos A, Tsatsanis C, Georgopoulos D (2008) Effects of respiratory rate on ventilator-induced lung injury at a constant PaCO2 in a mouse model of normal lung. Crit Care Med 36:1277–1283
Grasso S, Stripoli T, Mazzone P, Pezzuto M, Lacitignola L, Centonze P, Guarracino A, Esposito C, Herrmann P, Quintel M, Trerotoli P, Bruno F, Crovace A, Staffieri F (2014) Low respiratory rate plus minimally invasive extracorporeal CO2 removal decreases systemic and pulmonary inflammatory mediators in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 42:e451–e460
Marini JJ (2014) Spontaneous breathing, extrapulmonary CO(2) removal, and ventilator-induced lung injury risk: less power to the people? Crit Care Med 42:758–760
Cressoni M, Gotti M, Chiurazzi C, Massari D, Algieri I, Amini M, Cammaroto A, Brioni M, Montaruli C, Nikolla K, Guanziroli M, Dondossola D, Gatti S, Valerio V, Vergani GL, Pugni P, Cadringher P, Gagliano N, Gattinoni L (2016) Mechanical power and development of ventilator-induced lung injury. Anesthesiology 124:1100–1108
Hager DN, Krishnan JA, Hayden DL, Brower RG, Network ACT (2005) Tidal volume reduction in patients with acute lung injury when plateau pressures are not high. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 172:1241–1245
Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, Mercier E, Badet M, Mercat A, Baudin O, Clavel M, Chatellier D, Jaber S, Rosselli S, Mancebo J, Sirodot M, Hilbert G, Bengler C, Richecoeur J, Gainnier M, Bayle F, Bourdin G, Leray V, Girard R, Baboi L, Ayzac L (2013) Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 368:2159–2168
Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, Jaber S, Arnal JM, Perez D, Seghboyan JM, Constantin JM, Courant P, Lefrant JY, Guerin C, Prat G, Morange S, Roch A (2010) Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 363:1107–1116
Strauss MJ, LoGerfo JP, Yeltatzie JA, Temkin N, Hudson LD (1986) Rationing of intensive care unit services. An everyday occurrence. JAMA 255:1143–1146
Goldhill DR, Sumner A (1998) Outcome of intensive care patients in a group of British intensive care units. Crit Care Med 26(8):1337–1345
Wallis CB, Davies HT, Shearer AJ (1997) Why do patients die on general wards after discharge from intensive care units? Anaesthesia 52(1):9–14
Lautrette A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Bertrand PM, Goldgran-Toledano D, Jamali S, Laurent V, Argaud L, Schwebel C, Mourvillier B, Darmon M, Ruckly S, Dumenil AS, Lemiale V, Souweine B, Timsit JF, Outcomerea Study Group (2015) Respective impact of no escalation of treatment, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on ICU patients’ prognosis: a multicenter study of the Outcomerea Research Group. Intensive Care Med 41:1763–1772
Downar J, Delaney JW, Hawryluck L, Kenny L (2016) Guidelines for the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Intensive Care Med 42:1003–1017
Phua J, Joynt GM, Nishimura M, Deng Y, Myatra SN, Chan YH, Binh NG, Tan CC, Faruq MO, Arabi YM, Wahjuprajitno B, Liu SF, Hashemian SM, Kashif W, Staworn D, Palo JE, Koh Y, ACME Study Investigators, Asian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group (2016) Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in low-middle-income versus high-income Asian countries and regions. Intensive Care Med 42:1118–1127
Acknowledgments
Funding/support: This work was funded and supported by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Brussels, Belgium, by St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada, and by the University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Role of the funders: The ESICM provided support in data collection and study coordination. ESICM, St Michael’s Hospital, and University of Milan-Bicocca had no role in the design and conduct of the study; management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors attest that they have no conflicts of interest in regard to the subject of this manuscript.
Additional information
The LUNG SAFE investigators and National coordinators are listed in Appendix 1 and 2 of the supplementary materials.
Take-home message: In patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE, potentially modifiable factors associated with survival include higher PEEP, lower peak inspiratory, plateau, and driving pressures, and lower respiratory rate. Non-modifiable factors associated with worse outcome from ARDS included older patient age, active neoplasm, hematologic neoplasm, and chronic liver failure.
A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4981-z.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laffey, J.G., Bellani, G., Pham, T. et al. Potentially modifiable factors contributing to outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome: the LUNG SAFE study. Intensive Care Med 42, 1865–1876 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4571-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4571-5