Evidence Hub

Epidemiology, Mechanical Power, and 3-Year Outcomes in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients Using Standardized Screening. An Observational Cohort Study

K. Parhar, Karolina Zjadewicz, A. Soo, A. Sutton, Margaret Zjadewicz, Lauren Doig, Calvin Lam, A. Ferland et al.

Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2019

7,944 participants · 113 citations

Abstract

Rationale: Limited data on the epidemiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using a standardized screening program exist. Objectives: To describe the population-based incidence of hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS using a prospective standardized screening protocol; and to describe the mechanical ventilation practice and the mechanical power and examine their association with 28-day and 3-year survival outcomes. Methods: A prospective standardized screening program for ARDS, as a quality improvement initiative, was initiated at four adult intensive care units over a 27-month period. An ancillary analysis of this observational cohort was performed. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥24 hours underwent prospective and consecutive screening using standardized ventilator settings. Patient physiological data and outcomes were collected prospectively through an electronic clinical-information system and retrospectively analyzed to apply Berlin criteria. Results: Screened were 7,944 patients, among which 986 (12.4%) had hypoxemic respiratory failure (arterial oxygen tension to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio ≤300), and 731 (9.2%) met criteria for ARDS. Age-adjusted incidence of hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS were 37.7 and 27.6 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Patients sustaining the diagnosis of ARDS had a hospital mortality of 26.5% for mild, 31.8% for moderate, and 60.0% for severe ARDS and a 3-year mortality of 43.5% for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 7,944 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free