Wang Yan, Zhang Linlin, Xi Xiuming, Zhou Jian-Xin
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Fuxing Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Oct 18;8:739596. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.739596. eCollection 2021.
Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) strategies have been beneficial in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As a vital part of LPV, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can enhance oxygenation. However, randomized clinical trials of different PEEP strategies seem to show no advantages in clinical outcomes in patients with ARDS. A potential reason is that diverse etiologies and phenotypes in patients with ARDS may account for different PEEP responses, resulting in variations in mortality. We consider hospital mortality to be associated with a more specific classification of ARDS, such as sepsis induced or not, and pulmonary or extrapulmonary one. Our study aimed to compare clinical outcomes in various patients with ARDS by etiologies using the China Critical Care Sepsis Trial (CCCST) database. This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of 2,138 patients with ARDS in the CCCST database. According to ARDS induced by sepsis or not and medical history, patients were stratified into different four groups. Differences among groups were assessed in hospital mortality, ventilation-free days, and other clinical features. A total of 2,138 patients with ARDS were identified in the database, including 647 patients with sepsis-induced pulmonary ARDS (30.3%), 396 patients with sepsis-induced extrapulmonary ARDS (18.5%), 536 patients with non-sepsis pulmonary ARDS (25.1%), and 559 patients with non-sepsis extrapulmonary ARDS (26.1%). The pulmonary ARDS group had higher mortality compared with the extrapulmonary group (45.9 vs. 23.0%, < 0.01), longer intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays (9 vs. 6 days, < 0.01, 20 vs. 18 days, = 0.01, respectively), and fewer ventilation-free days (5 vs. 9 days) in the presence of sepsis. However, the mortality in ARDS without sepsis was inverted compared with extrapulmonary ARDS (pulmonary 23.5% vs. extrapulmonary 29.2%, = 0.04). After adjusting for the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and sequential organ failure assessment scores and other clinical features, the sepsis-induced pulmonary condition was still a risk factor for death in patients with ARDS (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% CI, 0.54-0.82, < 0.01) compared with sepsis-induced extrapulmonary ARDS and other subphenotypes. In the presence of sepsis, hospital mortality in pulmonary ARDS is higher compared with extrapulmonary ARDS; however, mortality is inverted in ARDS without sepsis. Sepsis-induced pulmonary ARDS should attract more attention from ICU physicians and be cautiously treated. ChiCTR-ECH-13003934. Registered August 3, 2013, http://www.chictr.org.cn.
肺保护性通气(LPV)策略已被证明对急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者有益。作为LPV的重要组成部分,呼气末正压(PEEP)可改善氧合。然而,不同PEEP策略的随机临床试验似乎并未显示出对ARDS患者临床结局有优势。一个潜在原因是,ARDS患者的病因和表型多样,可能导致对PEEP的反应不同,进而导致死亡率存在差异。我们认为医院死亡率与ARDS更具体的分类有关,例如是否由脓毒症引起,以及是肺部还是肺外原因导致。我们的研究旨在利用中国重症监护脓毒症试验(CCCST)数据库,比较不同病因的ARDS患者的临床结局。这是一项对CCCST数据库中2138例ARDS患者的前瞻性队列进行的回顾性分析。根据是否由脓毒症引起ARDS以及病史,将患者分为不同的四组。评估各组在医院死亡率、无通气天数和其他临床特征方面的差异。数据库中总共识别出2138例ARDS患者,包括647例脓毒症诱发的肺部ARDS患者(30.3%)、396例脓毒症诱发的肺外ARDS患者(18.5%)、536例非脓毒症肺部ARDS患者(25.1%)和559例非脓毒症肺外ARDS患者(26.1%)。在存在脓毒症的情况下,肺部ARDS组的死亡率高于肺外ARDS组(45.9%对23.0%,<0.01),重症监护病房(ICU)和住院时间更长(分别为9天对6天,<0.01;20天对18天,=0.01),无通气天数更少(5天对9天)。然而,非脓毒症ARDS患者的死亡率与肺外ARDS患者相比则相反(肺部23.5%对肺外29.2%,=0.04)。在调整急性生理与慢性健康状况评估II(APACHE II)和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分以及其他临床特征后,与脓毒症诱发的肺外ARDS及其他亚表型相比,脓毒症诱发的肺部情况仍是ARDS患者死亡的危险因素(风险比0.66,95%置信区间,0.54 - 0.82,<0.01)。在存在脓毒症的情况下,肺部ARDS的医院死亡率高于肺外ARDS;然而,在非脓毒症ARDS中死亡率则相反。脓毒症诱发的肺部ARDS应引起ICU医生更多关注并谨慎治疗。ChiCTR - ECH - 13003934。于2013年8月3日注册,http://www.chictr.org.cn。