Christopher N Schmickl1, Khurram Shahjehan2, Guangxi Li3, Rajanigandha Dhokarh4, Rahul Kashyap2, Christopher Janish2, Anas Alsara2, Allan S Jaffe5, Rolf D Hubmayr6, Ognjen Gajic2. 1. Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University Witten-Herdecke, Witten, Germany. Electronic address: cschmickl83@gmail.com. 2. Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Pulmonary Division, Department of Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Science, Beijing, China. 4. Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA. 5. Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 6. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At the onset of acute hypoxic respiratory failure, critically ill patients with acute lung injury (ALI) may be difficult to distinguish from those with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE). No single clinical parameter provides satisfying prediction. We hypothesized that a combination of those will facilitate early differential diagnosis. METHODS: In a population-based retrospective development cohort, validated electronic surveillance identified critically ill adult patients with acute pulmonary edema. Recursive partitioning and logistic regression were used to develop a decision support tool based on routine clinical information to differentiate ALI from CPE. Performance of the score was validated in an independent cohort of referral patients. Blinded post hoc expert review served as gold standard. RESULTS: Of 332 patients in a development cohort, expert reviewers (κ, 0.86) classified 156 as having ALI and 176 as having CPE. The validation cohort had 161 patients (ALI = 113, CPE = 48). The score was based on risk factors for ALI and CPE, age, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy, and peripheral oxygen saturation/Fio(2) ratio. It demonstrated good discrimination (area under curve [AUC] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL] P = .16). Similar performance was obtained in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; HL P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: A simple decision support tool accurately classifies acute pulmonary edema, reserving advanced testing for a subset of patients in whom satisfying prediction cannot be made. This novel tool may facilitate early inclusion of patients with ALI and CPE into research studies as well as improve and rationalize clinical management and resource use.
BACKGROUND: At the onset of acute hypoxic respiratory failure, critically illpatients with acute lung injury (ALI) may be difficult to distinguish from those with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE). No single clinical parameter provides satisfying prediction. We hypothesized that a combination of those will facilitate early differential diagnosis. METHODS: In a population-based retrospective development cohort, validated electronic surveillance identified critically ill adult patients with acute pulmonary edema. Recursive partitioning and logistic regression were used to develop a decision support tool based on routine clinical information to differentiate ALI from CPE. Performance of the score was validated in an independent cohort of referral patients. Blinded post hoc expert review served as gold standard. RESULTS: Of 332 patients in a development cohort, expert reviewers (κ, 0.86) classified 156 as having ALI and 176 as having CPE. The validation cohort had 161 patients (ALI = 113, CPE = 48). The score was based on risk factors for ALI and CPE, age, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy, and peripheral oxygen saturation/Fio(2) ratio. It demonstrated good discrimination (area under curve [AUC] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL] P = .16). Similar performance was obtained in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; HL P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: A simple decision support tool accurately classifies acute pulmonary edema, reserving advanced testing for a subset of patients in whom satisfying prediction cannot be made. This novel tool may facilitate early inclusion of patients with ALI and CPE into research studies as well as improve and rationalize clinical management and resource use.
Authors: S R Ommen; R A Nishimura; C P Appleton; F A Miller; J K Oh; M M Redfield; A J Tajik Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-10-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Evans R Fernández-Pérez; Murat Yilmaz; Hussam Jenad; Craig E Daniels; Jay H Ryu; Rolf D Hubmayr; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Chest Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: I G Stiell; G A Wells; K L Vandemheen; C M Clement; H Lesiuk; V J De Maio; A Laupacis; M Schull; R D McKnight; R Verbeek; R Brison; D Cass; J Dreyer; M A Eisenhauer; G H Greenberg; I MacPhail; L Morrison; M Reardon; J Worthington Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-10-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian M Fuller; Nicholas M Mohr; Matthew Dettmer; Sarah Kennedy; Kevin Cullison; Rebecca Bavolek; Nicholas Rathert; Craig McCammon Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Anthony Paulo Sunjaya; Nusrat Homaira; Kate Corcoran; Allison Martin; Norbert Berend; Christine Jenkins Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 2.871