D Chiumello1, P Taccone, V Berto, A Marino, G Migliara, M Lazzerini, L Gattinoni. 1. Dipartimento di Anestesia, Rianimazione (Intensiva e Subintensiva) e Terapia del Dolore, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, Milan, Italy. chiumello@libero.it
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to examine long-term pulmonary function and quality of life in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) previously enrolled in a randomized multicenter trial testing prone compared with supine positioning (PSII study) at five Italian centers. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Pulmonary function [spirometric test, gas exchange, carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO)], high-resolution computedtomography (CT) scan, and health-related quality of life [Short Form-36 (SF-36) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire] were evaluated at 12 months. RESULTS:Twenty-six patients (13 in each group, mean age 54.1 ± 2.8 years, body mass index 24.5 ± 1.4 kg/m(2), PaO(2)/FiO(2) 117 ± 49 mmHg) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in demographic data, illness severity, or outcome between the prone and supine groups. The overall survival rate was 40%. Pulmonary function was in the normal range without any differences between the two groups. Quantitative lung CT scan analysis showed similar amounts for not aerated (8.1 ± 3.2% versus 7.3 ± 3.4%), poorly aerated (15.3 ± 3.6% versus 17.1 ± 4.9%), and well-aerated (64.0% ± 8.4 versus 70.2 ± 8.4%) lung regions, while overaerated lung region was slightly higher in the prone compared with the supine group (12.5 ± 6.5% versus 5.3 ± 5.5%). Health-related quality of life was similar to in healthy population. However, these patients showed reduction in daily activity specifically due to pulmonary disease as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in pulmonary function or quality of life were observed in this small group of ARDS survivor patients treated in prone versus supine position.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to examine long-term pulmonary function and quality of life in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) previously enrolled in a randomized multicenter trial testing prone compared with supine positioning (PSII study) at five Italian centers. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Pulmonary function [spirometric test, gas exchange, carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO)], high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan, and health-related quality of life [Short Form-36 (SF-36) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire] were evaluated at 12 months. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (13 in each group, mean age 54.1 ± 2.8 years, body mass index 24.5 ± 1.4 kg/m(2), PaO(2)/FiO(2) 117 ± 49 mmHg) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in demographic data, illness severity, or outcome between the prone and supine groups. The overall survival rate was 40%. Pulmonary function was in the normal range without any differences between the two groups. Quantitative lung CT scan analysis showed similar amounts for not aerated (8.1 ± 3.2% versus 7.3 ± 3.4%), poorly aerated (15.3 ± 3.6% versus 17.1 ± 4.9%), and well-aerated (64.0% ± 8.4 versus 70.2 ± 8.4%) lung regions, while overaerated lung region was slightly higher in the prone compared with the supine group (12.5 ± 6.5% versus 5.3 ± 5.5%). Health-related quality of life was similar to in healthy population. However, these patients showed reduction in daily activity specifically due to pulmonary disease as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in pulmonary function or quality of life were observed in this small group of ARDS survivor patients treated in prone versus supine position.
Authors: Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; George Tomlinson; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Andrea Matté; Aiala Barr; Sangeeta Mehta; C David Mazer; Cameron B Guest; Thomas E Stewart; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky; Margaret S Herridge Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matte-Martyn; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Aiala Barr; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G H Guyatt; M J Sullivan; P J Thompson; E L Fallen; S O Pugsley; D W Taylor; L B Berman Journal: Can Med Assoc J Date: 1985-04-15 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jeremy R Beitler; Shahzad Shaefi; Sydney B Montesi; Amy Devlin; Stephen H Loring; Daniel Talmor; Atul Malhotra Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Selina M Parry; Swaroopa R Nalamalapu; Krishidhar Nunna; Anahita Rabiee; Lisa Aronson Friedman; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Catherine L Hough; Aasthaa Bansal; David L Veenstra; Miriam M Treggiari Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Maurizio Cecconi; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J R Curtis; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Salvatore M Maggiore; Jordi Mancebo; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Chen Yu Wang; Carolyn S Calfee; Devon W Paul; David R Janz; Addison K May; Hanjing Zhuo; Gordon R Bernard; Michael A Matthay; Lorraine B Ware; Kirsten Neudoerffer Kangelaris Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 17.440