Michael W Sjoding1,2, Timothy P Hofer1,3, Ivan Co1,4, Jakob I McSparron1, Theodore J Iwashyna1,3,5,6. 1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine. 2. 2 Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, and. 3. 3 VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. 5 Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and. 6. 6 Section Editor, AnnalsATS.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Because the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has only moderate reliability, physicians disagree about the diagnosis of ARDS in some patients. Understanding the clinical differences between patients with agreement and disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS may provide insight into the epidemiology and pathophysiology of this syndrome, and inform strategies to improve the reliability of ARDS diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To characterize patients with diagnostic disagreement about ARDS among critical-care-trained physicians and compare them with patients with a consensus that ARDS developed. METHODS: Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (arterial oxygen tension/pressure [PaO2]/fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] < 300 during invasive mechanical ventilation) were independently reviewed for ARDS by multiple critical-care physicians and categorized as consensus-ARDS, disagreement about the diagnosis, or no ARDS. RESULTS: Among 738 patients reviewed, 110 (15%) had consensus-ARDS, 100 (14%) had disagreement, and 528 (72%) did not have ARDS. ARDS diagnosis rates ranged from 9% to 47% across clinicians. Patients with disagreement had baseline comorbidity rates similar to those of patients with consensus-ARDS, but lower rates of ARDS risk factors and less severe measures of lung injury. Mean days of severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 100) were 3.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-3.9), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.4), and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) among patients with consensus-ARDS, disagreement, and no ARDS, respectively. Hospital mortality was 37% (95% CI, 28-46%), 35% (95% CI, 26-44%), and 19% (95% CI, 15-22%) across groups. Simple combinations of specific ARDS risk factors and lowest PaO2/FiO2 value could effectively discriminate patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92). For example, 63% of patients with pneumonia, shock, and PaO2/FiO2 < 110 had consensus-ARDS, whereas 100% of patients without pneumonia or shock and PaO2/FiO2 > 180 did not have ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS is common and can be partly explained by the difficulty of dichotomizing patients along a continuous spectrum of ARDS manifestations. Considering both the presence of key ARDS risk factors and hypoxemia severity can help guide clinicians in identifying patients with diagnosis of ARDS agreed upon by a consensus of physicians.
RATIONALE: Because the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has only moderate reliability, physicians disagree about the diagnosis of ARDS in some patients. Understanding the clinical differences between patients with agreement and disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS may provide insight into the epidemiology and pathophysiology of this syndrome, and inform strategies to improve the reliability of ARDS diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To characterize patients with diagnostic disagreement about ARDS among critical-care-trained physicians and compare them with patients with a consensus that ARDS developed. METHODS:Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (arterial oxygen tension/pressure [PaO2]/fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] < 300 during invasive mechanical ventilation) were independently reviewed for ARDS by multiple critical-care physicians and categorized as consensus-ARDS, disagreement about the diagnosis, or no ARDS. RESULTS: Among 738 patients reviewed, 110 (15%) had consensus-ARDS, 100 (14%) had disagreement, and 528 (72%) did not have ARDS. ARDS diagnosis rates ranged from 9% to 47% across clinicians. Patients with disagreement had baseline comorbidity rates similar to those of patients with consensus-ARDS, but lower rates of ARDS risk factors and less severe measures of lung injury. Mean days of severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 100) were 3.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-3.9), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.4), and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) among patients with consensus-ARDS, disagreement, and no ARDS, respectively. Hospital mortality was 37% (95% CI, 28-46%), 35% (95% CI, 26-44%), and 19% (95% CI, 15-22%) across groups. Simple combinations of specific ARDS risk factors and lowest PaO2/FiO2 value could effectively discriminate patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92). For example, 63% of patients with pneumonia, shock, and PaO2/FiO2 < 110 had consensus-ARDS, whereas 100% of patients without pneumonia or shock and PaO2/FiO2 > 180 did not have ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreement about the diagnosis of ARDS is common and can be partly explained by the difficulty of dichotomizing patients along a continuous spectrum of ARDS manifestations. Considering both the presence of key ARDS risk factors and hypoxemia severity can help guide clinicians in identifying patients with diagnosis of ARDS agreed upon by a consensus of physicians.
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: Hallie C Prescott; Carolyn S Calfee; B Taylor Thompson; Derek C Angus; Vincent X Liu Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Samuel M Brown; Abhijit Duggal; Peter C Hou; Mark Tidswell; Akram Khan; Matthew Exline; Pauline K Park; David A Schoenfeld; Ming Liu; Colin K Grissom; Marc Moss; Todd W Rice; Catherine L Hough; Emanuel Rivers; B Taylor Thompson; Roy G Brower Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daniel Kotok; Libing Yang; John W Evankovich; William Bain; Daniel G Dunlap; Faraaz Shah; Yingze Zhang; Dimitris V Manatakis; Panayiotis V Benos; Ian J Barbash; Sarah F Rapport; Janet S Lee; Alison Morris; Bryan J McVerry; Georgios D Kitsios Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Yub Raj Sedhai; Mengdan Yuan; Scott W Ketcham; Ivan Co; Dru D Claar; Jakob I McSparron; Hallie C Prescott; Michael W Sjoding Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Matthew Schwede; Robert Y Lee; Hanjing Zhuo; Kirsten N Kangelaris; Alejandra Jauregui; Kathryn Vessel; Annika Belzer; Thomas Deiss; Michael A Matthay; Kathleen D Liu; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mohamad H Tiba; Brendan M McCracken; Danielle C Leander; Carmen I Colmenero; Jean A Nemzek; Michael W Sjoding; Kristine E Konopka; Thomas L Flott; J Scott VanEpps; Rodney C Daniels; Kevin R Ward; Kathleen A Stringer; Robert P Dickson Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2021-05
Authors: Scott W Ketcham; Yub Raj Sedhai; H Catherine Miller; Thomas C Bolig; Amy Ludwig; Ivan Co; Dru Claar; Jakob I McSparron; Hallie C Prescott; Michael W Sjoding Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Shelsey W Johnson; Michael A Garcia; Emily K Q Sisson; Christopher R Sheldrick; Vishakha K Kumar; Karen Boman; Scott Bolesta; Vikas Bansal; Amos Lal; J P Domecq; Roman R Melamed; Amy B Christie; Abdurrahman Husain; Santiago Yus; Ognjen Gajic; Rahul Kashyap; Allan J Walkey Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-02-18