Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:


==Overview==
==Overview==
There are no screening tools for ARDS. The best way to make an early diagnosis of ARDS is to apply the [[Acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnostic criteria|diagnostic criteria]] to any patient with bilateral pulmonary infiltrates on [[chest x ray]], and new/worsening [[hypoxemia]] with an increasing [[Oxygen therapy|supplemental oxygen]] requirement in whom a [[Acute respiratory distress syndrome causes|potential cause]] or [[Acute respiratory distress syndrome risk factors|risk factor]] for ARDS exists.
Several screening tools have been devised to aid in the early detection of acute respiratory distress syndrome including Early Acute Lung Injury (EALI), ALI sniffer, and Lung Injury Prediction Study (LIPS) score.


==Screening==
==Screening==
Several clinical algorithms have been proposed and validated for early recognition of ARDS. No single biomarker is currently specific or sensitive enough to be incorporated into routine clinical practice.
Several screening tools have been proposed and validated for early recognition of progression to ARDS. However, no single biomarker is currently specific or sensitive enough to be incorporated into routine clinical practice.


Trillo-Alvarez et al. devised the Lung Injury Prediction Study (LIPS) score in an effort to identifie patients at high risk for acute lung injury before ICU admission.<ref>Trillo-Alvarez, C., R. Cartin-Ceba, D. J. Kor, M. Kojicic, R. Kashyap, S. Thakur, L. Thakur, V. Herasevich, M. Malinchoc, and O. Gajic. “Acute Lung Injury Prediction Score: Derivation and Validation in a Population-Based Sample.” European Respiratory Journal 37, no. 3 (March 1, 2011): 604–9. doi:10.1183/09031936.00036810.</ref> Covariates used in model derivation include predisposing conditions ([[trauma]], high-risk [[surgery]], [[sepsis]], [[shock]], [[pneumonia]], [[aspiration]], and [[pancreatitis]]) and risk-modifiers ([[tachypnea]], [[alcohol abuse]], [[hypoalbuminemia]], [[oxygen]] supplementation, [[chemotherapy]], [[diabetes mellitus]], and [[smoking]] history).
Levitt et al. proposed the criteria for "Early Acute Lung Injury (EALI)" which include: (1) hospital admission with bilateral opacities on chest radiograph; (2) the absence of isolated left atrial hypertension; and (3) the need for > 2 L/min of supplemental oxygen.<ref>Levitt, Joseph E., Harmeet Bedi, Carolyn S. Calfee, Michael K. Gould, and Michael A. Matthay. “Identification of Early Acute Lung Injury at Initial Evaluation in an Acute Care Setting prior to the Onset of Respiratory Failure.” Chest 135, no. 4 (April 2009): 936–43. doi:10.1378/chest.08-2346.</ref> The EALI was 73% sensitive and 79% specific for progression to ALI.
 
Thakur et al. developed and validated an ALI screening tool ("ALI sniffer") based on the American-European Consensus Conference definition using an electronic medical record that facilitates early recognition of specific criteria.<ref>Herasevich, Vitaly, Murat Yilmaz, Hasrat Khan, Rolf D. Hubmayr, and Ognjen Gajic. “Validation of an Electronic Surveillance System for Acute Lung Injury.” Intensive Care Medicine 35, no. 6 (June 2009): 1018–23. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1460-1.</ref> The tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.3% and a specificity of 89.4%, with a positive predictive value of 46.0% and a negative predictive value of 99.6%.
 
Trillo-Alvarez et al. devised the Lung Injury Prediction Study (LIPS) score to identify patients at high risk for ALI or ARDS before ICU admission by utilizing parameters that are clearly defined and routinely available in the medical record.<ref>Trillo-Alvarez, C., R. Cartin-Ceba, D. J. Kor, M. Kojicic, R. Kashyap, S. Thakur, L. Thakur, V. Herasevich, M. Malinchoc, and O. Gajic. “Acute Lung Injury Prediction Score: Derivation and Validation in a Population-Based Sample.” European Respiratory Journal 37, no. 3 (March 1, 2011): 604–9. doi:10.1183/09031936.00036810.</ref> Covariates used in model derivation include predisposing conditions ([[trauma]], high-risk [[surgery]], [[sepsis]], [[shock]], [[pneumonia]], [[aspiration]], and [[pancreatitis]]) and risk-modifiers ([[tachypnea]], [[alcohol abuse]], [[hypoalbuminemia]], [[oxygen]] supplementation, [[chemotherapy]], [[diabetes mellitus]], and [[smoking]] history). The LIPS score efficiently discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.84. The performance of the LIPS score was consistent in a multicenter cohort study with an AUC of 0.80 while maintaining an appropriate negative predictive value of 97% for a screening tool.<ref>Gajic, Ognjen, Ousama Dabbagh, Pauline K. Park, Adebola Adesanya, Steven Y. Chang, Peter Hou, Harry Anderson, et al. “Early Identification of Patients at Risk of Acute Lung Injury: Evaluation of Lung Injury Prediction Score in a Multicenter Cohort Study.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 183, no. 4 (February 15, 2011): 462–70. doi:10.1164/rccm.201004-0549OC.</ref>


==References==
==References==
Line 15: Line 19:


[[Category:Pulmonology]]
[[Category:Pulmonology]]
[[Category:FinalQCRequired]]
{{WS}}
{{WH}}

Latest revision as of 21:59, 14 July 2016

Acute respiratory distress syndrome Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Acute respiratory distress syndrome from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications, and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic study of choice

Diagnostic Criteria

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

CT

Echocardiography

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Mechanical Ventilation Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening

CDC on Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening

Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening in the news

Blogs on Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening

Directions to Hospitals Treating Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Risk calculators and risk factors for Acute respiratory distress syndrome screening

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Brian Shaller, M.D. [2]

Overview

Several screening tools have been devised to aid in the early detection of acute respiratory distress syndrome including Early Acute Lung Injury (EALI), ALI sniffer, and Lung Injury Prediction Study (LIPS) score.

Screening

Several screening tools have been proposed and validated for early recognition of progression to ARDS. However, no single biomarker is currently specific or sensitive enough to be incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Levitt et al. proposed the criteria for "Early Acute Lung Injury (EALI)" which include: (1) hospital admission with bilateral opacities on chest radiograph; (2) the absence of isolated left atrial hypertension; and (3) the need for > 2 L/min of supplemental oxygen.[1] The EALI was 73% sensitive and 79% specific for progression to ALI.

Thakur et al. developed and validated an ALI screening tool ("ALI sniffer") based on the American-European Consensus Conference definition using an electronic medical record that facilitates early recognition of specific criteria.[2] The tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.3% and a specificity of 89.4%, with a positive predictive value of 46.0% and a negative predictive value of 99.6%.

Trillo-Alvarez et al. devised the Lung Injury Prediction Study (LIPS) score to identify patients at high risk for ALI or ARDS before ICU admission by utilizing parameters that are clearly defined and routinely available in the medical record.[3] Covariates used in model derivation include predisposing conditions (trauma, high-risk surgery, sepsis, shock, pneumonia, aspiration, and pancreatitis) and risk-modifiers (tachypnea, alcohol abuse, hypoalbuminemia, oxygen supplementation, chemotherapy, diabetes mellitus, and smoking history). The LIPS score efficiently discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.84. The performance of the LIPS score was consistent in a multicenter cohort study with an AUC of 0.80 while maintaining an appropriate negative predictive value of 97% for a screening tool.[4]

References

  1. Levitt, Joseph E., Harmeet Bedi, Carolyn S. Calfee, Michael K. Gould, and Michael A. Matthay. “Identification of Early Acute Lung Injury at Initial Evaluation in an Acute Care Setting prior to the Onset of Respiratory Failure.” Chest 135, no. 4 (April 2009): 936–43. doi:10.1378/chest.08-2346.
  2. Herasevich, Vitaly, Murat Yilmaz, Hasrat Khan, Rolf D. Hubmayr, and Ognjen Gajic. “Validation of an Electronic Surveillance System for Acute Lung Injury.” Intensive Care Medicine 35, no. 6 (June 2009): 1018–23. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1460-1.
  3. Trillo-Alvarez, C., R. Cartin-Ceba, D. J. Kor, M. Kojicic, R. Kashyap, S. Thakur, L. Thakur, V. Herasevich, M. Malinchoc, and O. Gajic. “Acute Lung Injury Prediction Score: Derivation and Validation in a Population-Based Sample.” European Respiratory Journal 37, no. 3 (March 1, 2011): 604–9. doi:10.1183/09031936.00036810.
  4. Gajic, Ognjen, Ousama Dabbagh, Pauline K. Park, Adebola Adesanya, Steven Y. Chang, Peter Hou, Harry Anderson, et al. “Early Identification of Patients at Risk of Acute Lung Injury: Evaluation of Lung Injury Prediction Score in a Multicenter Cohort Study.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 183, no. 4 (February 15, 2011): 462–70. doi:10.1164/rccm.201004-0549OC.