Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries

Importance Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Objectives To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts—for example prone positioning—in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition.

Design, Setting, and Participants 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 undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents.

Exposures Acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS.

Results Of 29 144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS.

Conclusions and Relevance Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

Background and AimsTo compare endoscopy and pathology sizing in a large population-based series of colorectal adenomas and to evaluate the implications for patient stratification into surveillance colonoscopy.MethodsEndoscopy and pathology sizes available from intact adenomas removed at colonoscopies performed as part of the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, from 2010 to 2015, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests were applied to compare size categories in relation to clinicopathological parameters and colonoscopy surveillance strata according to current American Gastroenterology Association and British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines.ResultsA total of 2521 adenomas from 1467 individuals were included. There was a trend toward larger endoscopy than pathology sizing in 4 of the 5 study centers, but overall sizing concordance was good. Significantly greater clustering with sizing to the nearest 5 mm was evident in endoscopy versus pathology sizing (30% vs 19%, p<0.001), which may result in lower accuracy. Applying a 10-mm cut-off relevant to guidelines on risk stratification, 7.3% of all adenomas and 28.3% of those 8 to 12 mm in size had discordant endoscopy and pathology size categorization. Depending upon which guidelines are applied, 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals had differing risk stratification for surveillance recommendations, with the use of pathology sizing resulting in marginally fewer recommended surveillance colonoscopies.ConclusionsChoice of pathology or endoscopy approaches to determine adenoma size will potentially influence surveillance colonoscopy follow-up in 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals. Pathology sizing appears more accurate than endoscopy sizing, and preferential use of pathology size would result in a small, but clinically important, decreased burden on surveillance colonoscopy demand. Careful endoscopy sizing is required for adenomas removed piecemeal.