Saigal Saurabh, Joshi Rajnish, Sharma Jai Prakash, Pandey Vandana, Pakhare Abhijit
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, AIIMS, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Department of Medicine, AIIMS, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov;22(11):789-796. doi: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_338_18.
The objective of this study was to classify dyspneic patients and to evaluate outcome variables on the basis of lung ultrasound (LUS) and arterial blood gas (ABG) findings.
We performed a retrospective chart-based review in which we included patients with dyspnea admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) between March 2015 and August 2016. On the basis of LUS (presence of A-lines/B-lines) and ABG (hypoxia/hypercarbia), patients were classified into six groups: (i) metabolic defect (dry lung, no hypoxia); (ii) perfusion defect (dry lung, hypoxia); (iii) ventilation defect (dry lung, hypoxia, and hypercarbia); (iv) ventilation and alveolar defect (wet lung, hypoxia, and hypercarbia); (v) alveolar defect-consolidation ([wet lung] hypoxia, no echocardiographic [ECG] abnormality); (vi) alveolar defect-pulmonary edema (wet lung [usually bilateral], hypoxia, ECG abnormality). The patient's demographic data, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, need for intubation, vasopressors, form of mechanical ventilation, ICU outcome, and length of stay were noted.
A total of 244 out of 435 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. The median age was 56 years. 132 patients (54.1%) required mechanical ventilation, and median SOFA score was 7. Noninvasive ventilation was required in 87.5% of patients with ventilation defect as compared to 9.2% with alveolar defect-consolidation ( < 0.0001). We had 21.7% mortality in patients with alveolar defect-consolidation, 10.8% mortality in patients with metabolic defect, and 8.7% mortality in patients with alveolar defect-pulmonary edema ( < 0.0001).
This classification gives an organized approach in managing patients with dyspnea. It predicts that patients with alveolar defect-consolidation are most sick of all the groups and need immediate intervention.
本研究的目的是根据肺部超声(LUS)和动脉血气(ABG)检查结果对呼吸困难患者进行分类,并评估相关结局变量。
我们进行了一项基于病历的回顾性研究,纳入了2015年3月至2016年8月期间入住我们重症监护病房(ICU)的呼吸困难患者。根据LUS(A线/B线的存在情况)和ABG(低氧血症/高碳酸血症),将患者分为六组:(i)代谢缺陷(肺干燥,无低氧血症);(ii)灌注缺陷(肺干燥,低氧血症);(iii)通气缺陷(肺干燥,低氧血症和高碳酸血症);(iv)通气和肺泡缺陷(肺湿,低氧血症和高碳酸血症);(v)肺泡缺陷-实变([肺湿]低氧血症,无超声心动图[ECG]异常);(vi)肺泡缺陷-肺水肿(肺湿[通常为双侧],低氧血症,ECG异常)。记录患者的人口统计学数据、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、插管需求、血管活性药物使用情况、机械通气方式、ICU结局和住院时间。
435例患者中共有244例符合纳入本研究的条件。中位年龄为56岁。132例患者(54.1%)需要机械通气,中位SOFA评分为7分。通气缺陷患者中有87.5%需要无创通气,而肺泡缺陷-实变患者中这一比例为9.2%(<0.0001)。肺泡缺陷-实变患者的死亡率为21.7%,代谢缺陷患者的死亡率为10.8%,肺泡缺陷-肺水肿患者的死亡率为8.7%(<0.0001)。
这种分类方法为管理呼吸困难患者提供了一种有组织的方法。它预测肺泡缺陷-实变患者在所有组中病情最严重,需要立即干预。