Daryl J Kor1, Ravi K Lingineni, Ognjen Gajic, Pauline K Park, James M Blum, Peter C Hou, J Jason Hoth, Harry L Anderson, Ednan K Bajwa, Raquel R Bartz, Adebola Adesanya, Emir Festic, Michelle N Gong, Rickey E Carter, Daniel S Talmor. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology (D.J.K.), Department of Health Sciences Research (R.K.L., R.E.C.), and Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (O.G.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Surgery (P.K.P.) and Department of Anesthesiology (J.M.B.), University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Surgery (H.L.A.), St Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (P.C.H.); Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (J.J.H.); Departme nt of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (E.K.B.); Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (R.R.B.); Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (A.A.); Department of Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida (E.F.); Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (M.N.G.); and Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (D.S.T.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious postoperative complication. Although ARDS prevention is a priority, the inability to identify patients at risk for ARDS remains a barrier to progress. The authors tested and refined the previously reported surgical lung injury prediction (SLIP) model in a multicenter cohort of at-risk surgical patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort investigation evaluating high-risk patients undergoing surgery. Preoperative ARDS risk factors and risk modifiers were evaluated for inclusion in a parsimonious risk-prediction model. Multiple imputation and domain analysis were used to facilitate development of a refined model, designated SLIP-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model performance. RESULTS: Among 1,562 at-risk patients, ARDS developed in 117 (7.5%). Nine independent predictors of ARDS were identified: sepsis, high-risk aortic vascular surgery, high-risk cardiac surgery, emergency surgery, cirrhosis, admission location other than home, increased respiratory rate (20 to 29 and ≥30 breaths/min), FIO2 greater than 35%, and SpO2 less than 95%. The original SLIP score performed poorly in this heterogeneous cohort with baseline risk factors for ARDS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.56 [0.50 to 0.62]). In contrast, SLIP-2 score performed well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.84 [0.81 to 0.88]). Internal validation indicated similar discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of patients at risk for ARDS, the SLIP-2 score outperformed the original SLIP score. If validated in an independent sample, this tool may help identify surgical patients at high risk for ARDS.
BACKGROUND:Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious postoperative complication. Although ARDS prevention is a priority, the inability to identify patients at risk for ARDS remains a barrier to progress. The authors tested and refined the previously reported surgical lung injury prediction (SLIP) model in a multicenter cohort of at-risk surgical patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort investigation evaluating high-risk patients undergoing surgery. Preoperative ARDS risk factors and risk modifiers were evaluated for inclusion in a parsimonious risk-prediction model. Multiple imputation and domain analysis were used to facilitate development of a refined model, designated SLIP-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model performance. RESULTS: Among 1,562 at-risk patients, ARDS developed in 117 (7.5%). Nine independent predictors of ARDS were identified: sepsis, high-risk aortic vascular surgery, high-risk cardiac surgery, emergency surgery, cirrhosis, admission location other than home, increased respiratory rate (20 to 29 and ≥30 breaths/min), FIO2 greater than 35%, and SpO2 less than 95%. The original SLIP score performed poorly in this heterogeneous cohort with baseline risk factors for ARDS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.56 [0.50 to 0.62]). In contrast, SLIP-2 score performed well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.84 [0.81 to 0.88]). Internal validation indicated similar discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of patients at risk for ARDS, the SLIP-2 score outperformed the original SLIP score. If validated in an independent sample, this tool may help identify surgical patients at high risk for ARDS.
Authors: Ognjen Gajic; Ousama Dabbagh; Pauline K Park; Adebola Adesanya; Steven Y Chang; Peter Hou; Harry Anderson; J Jason Hoth; Mark E Mikkelsen; Nina T Gentile; Michelle N Gong; Daniel Talmor; Ednan Bajwa; Timothy R Watkins; Emir Festic; Murat Yilmaz; Remzi Iscimen; David A Kaufman; Annette M Esper; Ruxana Sadikot; Ivor Douglas; Jonathan Sevransky; Michael Malinchoc Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R Legall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Evans R Fernández-Pérez; Mark T Keegan; Daniel R Brown; Rolf D Hubmayr; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Michael A Matthay; Guy A Zimmerman; Charles Esmon; Jahar Bhattacharya; Barry Coller; Claire M Doerschuk; Joanna Floros; Michael A Gimbrone; Eric Hoffman; Rolf D Hubmayr; Mark Leppert; Sadis Matalon; Robert Munford; Polly Parsons; Arthur S Slutsky; Kevin J Tracey; Peter Ward; Dorothy B Gail; Andrea L Harabin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Niall D Ferguson; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Massimo Antonelli; Antonio Anzueto; Richard Beale; Laurent Brochard; Roy Brower; Andrés Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Andrew Rhodes; Arthur S Slutsky; Jean-Louis Vincent; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Daniel H Buitrago; Sidhu P Gangadharan; Adnan Majid; Michael S Kent; Daniel Alape; Jennifer L Wilson; Mihir S Parikh; Dae H Kim Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Joo Han Song; Won Ki Woo; Seung Hwan Song; Hyo Hyun Kim; Bong Joon Kim; Ha Eun Kim; Do Jung Kim; Jee Won Suh; Yu Rim Shin; Han Ki Park; Seung Hyun Lee; Hyun Chel Joo; Sak Lee; Byung Chul Chang; Kyung Jong Yoo; Young Sam Kim; Young Nam Youn Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Aluko A Hope; Jen-Ting Chen; David A Kaufman; Daniel S Talmor; Daryl J Kor; Ognjen Gajic; Michelle N Gong Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-11
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Luiz Guilherme V da Costa; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Jaume Canet; Göran Hedenstierna; Samir Jaber; Michael Hiesmayr; Markus W Hollmann; Gary H Mills; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Rupert Pearse; Christian Putensen; Werner Schmid; Paolo Severgnini; Hermann Wrigge; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.330