Trauma center designation and the decreasing incidence of post-traumatic acute respiratory distress syndrome: A potential guidepost for quality improvement

Prognostic factors for development of acute respiratory distress syndrome following traumatic injury - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To summarise the prognostic associations between various clinical risk factors and the development of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) following traumatic injury.

METHODS

We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA and CHARMS guidelines. We searched six databases from inception through December 2020. We included English language studies describing the clinical risk factors associated with the development of post-traumatic ARDS, as defined by either the American-European Consensus Conference or the Berlin definition. We pooled adjusted odds ratios for prognostic factors using the random effects method. We assessed risk of bias using the QUIPS tool and certainty of findings using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies involving 5 350 927 patients. We identified the amount of crystalloid resuscitation as a potentially modifiable prognostic factor associated with the development of post-traumatic ARDS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.19 for each additional liter of crystalloid administered within first 6 h after injury, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.24, high certainty). Non-modifiable prognostic factors with a moderate or high certainty of association with post-traumatic ARDS included increasing age, non-Hispanic white race, blunt mechanism of injury, presence of head injury, pulmonary contusion, or rib fracture; and increasing chest injury severity.

CONCLUSION

We identified one important modifiable factor, the amount of crystalloid resuscitation within the first 24 h of injury, and several non-modifiable factors associated with development of post-traumatic ARDS. This information should support the judicious use of crystalloid resuscitation in trauma patients and may inform the development of a risk-stratification tools.

Misclassification of acute respiratory distress syndrome after traumatic injury: The cost of less rigorous approaches

BACKGROUND

Adherence to rigorous research protocols for identifying adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after trauma is variable. To examine how misclassification of ARDS may bias observational studies in trauma populations, we evaluated the agreement of two methods for adjudicating ARDS after trauma: the current gold standard, direct review of chest radiographs and review of dictated radiology reports, a commonly used alternative.

METHODS

This nested cohort study included 123 mechanically ventilated patients between 2005 and 2008, with at least one PaO2/FIO2 less than 300 within the first 8 days of admission. Two blinded physician investigators adjudicated ARDS by two methods. The investigators directly reviewed all chest radiographs to evaluate for bilateral infiltrates. Several months later, blinded to their previous assessments, they adjudicated ARDS using a standardized rubric to classify radiology reports. A κ statistics was calculated. Regression analyses quantified the association between established risk factors as well as important clinical outcomes and ARDS determined by the aforementioned methods as well as hypoxemia as a surrogate marker.

RESULTS

The κ was 0.47 for the observed agreement between ARDS adjudicated by direct review of chest radiographs and ARDS adjudicated by review of radiology reports. Both the magnitude and direction of bias on the estimates of association between ARDS and established risk factors as well as clinical outcomes varied by method of adjudication.

CONCLUSION

Classification of ARDS by review of dictated radiology reports had only moderate agreement with the current gold standard, ARDS adjudicated by direct review of chest radiographs. While the misclassification of ARDS had varied effects on the estimates of associations with established risk factors, it tended to weaken the association of ARDS with important clinical outcomes. A standardized approach to ARDS adjudication after trauma by direct review of chest radiographs will minimize misclassification bias in future observational studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, level II.

What the Intensive Care Doctor Needs to Know about Blast-Related Lung Injury

Explosions are currently the primary cause of military combat injuries. A minority of civilian trauma is also caused by explosions. People hurt by explosion are likely to present with complex injuries. The aim of the article is to explain the mechanism underlying these injuries and the associated physiology to help the intensive care clinician manage these casualties properly. The generic term ‘blast injury’ is applied to a collection of injuries caused by explosion. Components of blast injuries have precise definitions relating to the elements of the explosion that caused the injuries: primary blast injury is due to a shock wave, secondary blast injury is caused by fragments and debris colliding with the victim and tertiary blast injury is due to the casualty being thrown against solid objects. Primary blast injury results in damage principally in gas-containing organs, eg the lungs (blast lung) and can lead to impaired pulmonary gas transfer and hypoxaemia. Secondary blast injuries are often penetrating and can lead to haemorrhage while tertiary blast injuries are often blunt and involve substantial tissue damage. Survivors of explosions in confined spaces are more likely to exhibit primary blast injury than those injured in open spaces. The current military approach to immediate management is to apply the C ABC principle (arrest catastrophic haemorrhage first and then deal with airway, breathing and circulation) to achieve Damage Control Resuscitation. Early administration of blood products (plasma as well as red cells) is advocated for those suffering significant haemorrhage. Initial resuscitation is hypotensive to minimise risk of dislodging nascent clots. However, if evacuation is protracted (longer than one hour) then consideration should be given to improving blood flow / oxygen delivery by adopting a revised normotensive blood pressure target to reverse the deleterious consequences of the hypotensive shock state. Animal studies have shown that titrating FiO2 to a target SaO2 of 95% can improve survival and ‘buy time’ during hypotensive resuscitation. Ventilator strategies should use a lung-protective approach with permissive hypercapnia if necessary. Blast casualties are often a challenging group of patients needing expert, tailored, care. Outcome can be good especially in young, otherwise fit, casualties with more than 96% surviving to ICU discharge, although this figure may be lower with a mixed civilian group.