Kopstick Avi J, Rufener Christina R, Banerji Adrian O, Hudkins Matthew R, Kirby Aileen L, Markwardt Sheila, Orwoll Benjamin E
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, El Paso, Texas.
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California.
Respir Care. 2022 Aug;67(8):985-994. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09806. Epub 2022 Jun 21.
For almost 50 years, pediatricians used adult guidelines to diagnose ARDS. In 2015, specific criteria for pediatric ARDS were defined. However, it remains unclear how frequently providers recognize pediatric ARDS and whether recognition affects adherence to consensus recommendations.
This was a mixed-method, retrospective study of mechanically ventilated pediatric subjects after the release of the pediatric ARDS recommendation statement. Pediatric ARDS cases were identified according to the new criteria. Provider recognition was defined by documentation in the medical record. Pediatric ARDS subjects with and without provider recognition were compared quantitatively according to clinical characteristics, adherence to lung-protective ventilation (LPV), adjunctive therapies, and outcomes. A qualitative document analysis (QDA) was performed to evaluate knowledge and beliefs surrounding the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference recommendations.
Of 1,983 subject encounters, pediatric ARDS was identified in 321 (16%). Provider recognition was present in 97 (30%) cases and occurred more often in subjects who were older, had worse oxygenation deficits, or were bone marrow transplant recipients. Recognition rates increased each studied year. LPV practices did not differ based on provider recognition; however, subjects who received it were more likely to experience permissive hypoxemia and adherence to extrapulmonary recommendations. Ultimately, there was no differences in outcomes between the provider recognition and non-provider recognition groups. Three themes emerged from the QDA: (1) pediatric ARDS presents within a complex, multidimensional context, with potentially competing organ system failures; (2) similar to historical conceptualizations, pediatric ARDS was often considered a visual diagnosis, with measures of oxygenation unreferenced; and (3) emphasis was placed on non-evidence-based interventions, such as pulmonary clearance techniques, rather than on consensus recommendations.
Among mechanically ventilated children, pediatric ARDS was common but recognized in a minority of cases. Potential opportunities, such as an opt-out approach to LPV, may exist for improved dissemination and implementation of recommended best practices.
近50年来,儿科医生一直使用成人指南来诊断急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)。2015年,小儿ARDS的具体标准得以确定。然而,目前尚不清楚医疗人员识别小儿ARDS的频率如何,以及识别是否会影响对共识性建议的遵循情况。
这是一项混合方法的回顾性研究,研究对象为小儿ARDS推荐声明发布后接受机械通气的儿科患者。根据新标准确定小儿ARDS病例。通过病历记录来定义医疗人员的识别情况。根据临床特征、对肺保护性通气(LPV)的遵循情况、辅助治疗方法及治疗结果,对有和没有医疗人员识别的小儿ARDS患者进行定量比较。进行定性文献分析(QDA)以评估围绕小儿急性肺损伤共识会议建议的知识和信念。
在1983例患者中,确诊小儿ARDS的有321例(16%)。97例(30%)病例有医疗人员识别,且在年龄较大、氧合缺陷较严重或为骨髓移植受者的患者中更常出现。各研究年份的识别率均有所上升。基于医疗人员的识别情况,LPV的应用情况并无差异;然而,接受LPV的患者更有可能出现允许性低氧血症并遵循肺外建议。最终,医疗人员识别组和非医疗人员识别组的治疗结果并无差异。QDA出现了三个主题:(1)小儿ARDS出现在一个复杂的、多维度的背景下,可能存在相互竞争的器官系统衰竭;(2)与以往的概念类似,小儿ARDS常被视为一种直观诊断,未参考氧合指标;(3)重点放在了非循证干预措施上,如肺部清除技术,而非共识性建议。
在接受机械通气的儿童中,小儿ARDS很常见,但只有少数病例得到识别。对于推荐的最佳实践,可能存在如采用选择退出式LPV方法等潜在机会来促进其传播和实施。