Evidence Hub

Attributable mortality of ARDS among critically ill patients with sepsis: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Dong-Hui Wang, Huimiao Jia, Xi Zheng, Xiu-Ming Xi, Yue Zheng, Wen-Xiong Li

BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2024

2,323 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Background Both sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are common severe diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is no large-scale multicenter study to clarify the attributable mortality of ARDS among septic patients. This study aimed to evaluate the excess mortality of ARDS in critically ill patients with sepsis. Methods The data were obtained from a multicenter, prospective cohort study in 18 Chinese ICUs between January 2014 and August 2015. The study population was septic patients after ICU admission. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who developed ARDS (ARDS group) within seven days following a sepsis diagnosis and those who did not develop ARDS (non-ARDS group). Applying propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched 1:1 as ARDS and non-ARDS groups. Mortality attributed to ARDS was calculated. Subsequently, we conducted a survival analysis to estimate the impact of ARDS on mortality. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality after sepsis diagnosis. Results 2323 septic patients were eligible, 67.8% developed ARDS. After PSM, 737 patients with ARDS were matched 1:1 with 737 non-ARDS patients. ARDS’s overall 30-day attributable mortality was 11.9% (95% CI 7.5–16.3%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the 30-day attributable mortality of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS was 10.5% (95% CI 4.0-16.8%, p < 0.001), 11.6% (95% CI 4.7–18.4%, p < 0.001) and 18.1% (95% CI 4.5–30.9%, p = 0.006), respectively. ARDS was an…

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: 2,323 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