3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Overview of current lung imaging in acute respiratory distress syndrome

      announcement

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis and follow-up of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Chest radiography, bedside lung ultrasonography and computed tomography scans can provide useful information for the management of patients and detection of prognostic factors. However, imaging findings are not specific and several possible differential diagnoses should be taken into account. Herein we will review the role of radiological techniques in ARDS, highlight the plain radiological and computed tomography findings according to the pathological stage of the disease (exudative, inflammatory and fibroproliferative), and summarise the main points for the differential diagnosis with cardiogenic oedema, which is still challenging in the acute stage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition.

          The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P < .001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P < .001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

            Previous trials involving patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have failed to show a beneficial effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilatory support on outcomes. We evaluated the effect of early application of prone positioning on outcomes in patients with severe ARDS. In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we randomly assigned 466 patients with severe ARDS to undergo prone-positioning sessions of at least 16 hours or to be left in the supine position. Severe ARDS was defined as a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of less than 150 mm Hg, with an FiO2 of at least 0.6, a positive end-expiratory pressure of at least 5 cm of water, and a tidal volume close to 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who died from any cause within 28 days after inclusion. A total of 237 patients were assigned to the prone group, and 229 patients were assigned to the supine group. The 28-day mortality was 16.0% in the prone group and 32.8% in the supine group (P<0.001). The hazard ratio for death with prone positioning was 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.63). Unadjusted 90-day mortality was 23.6% in the prone group versus 41.0% in the supine group (P<0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67). The incidence of complications did not differ significantly between the groups, except for the incidence of cardiac arrests, which was higher in the supine group. In patients with severe ARDS, early application of prolonged prone-positioning sessions significantly decreased 28-day and 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National 2006 and 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; PROSEVA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527813.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound.

              The purpose of this study is to provide evidence-based and expert consensus recommendations for lung ultrasound with focus on emergency and critical care settings. A multidisciplinary panel of 28 experts from eight countries was involved. Literature was reviewed from January 1966 to June 2011. Consensus members searched multiple databases including Pubmed, Medline, OVID, Embase, and others. The process used to develop these evidence-based recommendations involved two phases: determining the level of quality of evidence and developing the recommendation. The quality of evidence is assessed by the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method. However, the GRADE system does not enforce a specific method on how the panel should reach decisions during the consensus process. Our methodology committee decided to utilize the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and decisions/consensus. Seventy-three proposed statements were examined and discussed in three conferences held in Bologna, Pisa, and Rome. Each conference included two rounds of face-to-face modified Delphi technique. Anonymous panel voting followed each round. The panel did not reach an agreement and therefore did not adopt any recommendations for six statements. Weak/conditional recommendations were made for 2 statements, and strong recommendations were made for the remaining 65 statements. The statements were then recategorized and grouped to their current format. Internal and external peer-review processes took place before submission of the recommendations. Updates will occur at least every 4 years or whenever significant major changes in evidence appear. This document reflects the overall results of the first consensus conference on "point-of-care" lung ultrasound. Statements were discussed and elaborated by experts who published the vast majority of papers on clinical use of lung ultrasound in the last 20 years. Recommendations were produced to guide implementation, development, and standardization of lung ultrasound in all relevant settings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Respir Rev
                Eur Respir Rev
                err
                ERS
                European Respiratory Review
                European Respiratory Society (442 Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2PX, UK )
                0905-9180
                1600-0617
                December 2014
                : 23
                : 134
                : 519-530
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Radiology Unit, Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Dept, University Hospital S. Orsola-Malpighi , Bologna, Italy. [2 ]Pneumology and Intensive Respiratory Care Unit, Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Dept, University Hospital S. Orsola-Malpighi , Bologna, Italy
                Author notes
                Maurizio Zompatori, Radiology Unit, Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Dept, University Hospital S. Orsola-Malpighi, Via Massarenti 9, 40100 Bologna, Italy. E-mail: maurizio.zompatori@ 123456unibo.it
                Article
                err0013-2014
                10.1183/09059180.00001314
                9487404
                25445951
                17309772-dc37-4ee7-9ad8-e9ff1c96ed71
                ©ERS 2014

                ERR articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

                History
                : 09 February 2014
                : 27 April 2014
                Categories
                Series
                8
                17
                Number 3 in the Series “Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome“
                Edited by S. John Wort and Stefano Nava

                Comments

                Comment on this article