BACKGROUND: The American-European Consensus Conference definition for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has never been validated. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical criteria for ARDS with autopsy findings. DESIGN: Independent comparison of autopsy findings with clinical characteristics retrospectively abstracted from medical records. SETTING: Tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: 382 patients who underwent clinical autopsy. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for clinical criteria were calculated in 3 cohorts by using diffuse alveolar damage at autopsy as the reference standard. The 3 cohorts were 1) all patients, 2) patients with any risk factor for ARDS, and 3) patients who were separated according to their pulmonary or extrapulmonary risk factors. RESULTS: 127 patients (33%) met the clinical criteria, and 112 (29%) had diffuse alveolar damage. In all patients, the sensitivity of the clinical definition was 75% (95% CI, 66% to 82%) and the specificity was 84% (CI, 79% to 88%). In 284 patients with risk factors, the sensitivity was 76% (CI, 67% to 83%) and the specificity was 75% (CI, 68% to 81%). Compared with patients with pulmonary risk factors, patients with extrapulmonary risk factors had significantly higher sensitivity (61% vs. 85%; P = 0.009) and the specificity did not statistically significantly differ (69% vs. 78%; P > 0.2). LIMITATIONS: Only patients who died and underwent autopsy could be included in this study, so these results may not apply to less severe cases of ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a series of autopsy patients, the accuracy of the American-European Consensus Conference definition of ARDS was only moderate. The definition was more accurate for patients with extrapulmonary risk factors than for patients with pulmonary risk factors.
BACKGROUND: The American-European Consensus Conference definition for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has never been validated. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical criteria for ARDS with autopsy findings. DESIGN: Independent comparison of autopsy findings with clinical characteristics retrospectively abstracted from medical records. SETTING: Tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: 382 patients who underwent clinical autopsy. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for clinical criteria were calculated in 3 cohorts by using diffuse alveolar damage at autopsy as the reference standard. The 3 cohorts were 1) all patients, 2) patients with any risk factor for ARDS, and 3) patients who were separated according to their pulmonary or extrapulmonary risk factors. RESULTS: 127 patients (33%) met the clinical criteria, and 112 (29%) had diffuse alveolar damage. In all patients, the sensitivity of the clinical definition was 75% (95% CI, 66% to 82%) and the specificity was 84% (CI, 79% to 88%). In 284 patients with risk factors, the sensitivity was 76% (CI, 67% to 83%) and the specificity was 75% (CI, 68% to 81%). Compared with patients with pulmonary risk factors, patients with extrapulmonary risk factors had significantly higher sensitivity (61% vs. 85%; P = 0.009) and the specificity did not statistically significantly differ (69% vs. 78%; P > 0.2). LIMITATIONS: Only patients who died and underwent autopsy could be included in this study, so these results may not apply to less severe cases of ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a series of autopsy patients, the accuracy of the American-European Consensus Conference definition of ARDS was only moderate. The definition was more accurate for patients with extrapulmonary risk factors than for patients with pulmonary risk factors.
Authors: Aude Gibelin; Antoine Parrot; Bernard Maitre; Christian Brun-Buisson; Armand Mekontso Dessap; Muriel Fartoukh; Nicolas de Prost Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Pablo Cruces; Franco Díaz; Alonso Puga; Benjamín Erranz; Alejandro Donoso; Cristóbal Carvajal; Jan Wilhelm; Gabriela M Repetto Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Dale M Needham; David W Dowdy; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Margaret S Herridge; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-05-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Judie A Howrylak; Tamas Dolinay; Lorrie Lucht; Zhaoxi Wang; David C Christiani; Jigme M Sethi; Eric P Xing; Michael P Donahoe; Augustine M K Choi Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: José A Lorente; Pablo Cardinal-Fernández; Diego Muñoz; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Arnaud W Thille; Carlos Jaramillo; Aida Ballén-Barragán; José M Rodríguez; Oscar Peñuelas; Guillermo Ortiz; José Blanco; Bruno Valle Pinheiro; Nicolás Nin; María del Carmen Marin; Andrés Esteban; Taylor B Thompson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 17.440