...
首页> 外文期刊>Critical care medicine >Use of intensive care, mechanical ventilation, both, or neither by patients with acute lung injury.
【24h】

Use of intensive care, mechanical ventilation, both, or neither by patients with acute lung injury.

机译:重症监护和/或机械通气是否使用,或者是否由急性肺损伤患者使用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: Reports of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome have generally been restricted to mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, creating an incomplete picture of the epidemiologies of the syndromes. We sought to determine the incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndromes throughout an entire hospital population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: All patients satisfying criteria for acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome during a 2-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 11,465 acute medical and surgical admissions during the study period; 156 patients had acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Only 74 (47%) were invasively ventilated in an intensive care unit for acute lung injury. Another 15 (10%) patients were ventilated for other reasons, 41 (26%) were admitted to an intensive care unit at approximately the time of acute lung injury onset but were not invasively ventilated, and 26 (17%) were managed with neither invasive ventilation nor admission to an intensive care unit. Four-week mortality differed by group (p = .023), ranging from 22% among those managed in an intensive care unit without invasive ventilation to 50% among those ventilated for acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. By 2 yrs, differences in survival between groups were no longer significant. Notably, only 53 (34%) patients would have been eligible for widely cited acute lung injury intervention trials. Ten patients had a second episode of acute lung injury during the study period, equating to a 16%-per-year risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome studies restricted to patients mechanically ventilated in intensive care units substantially underestimate the incidence of the syndromes. Nonventilated patients and those cared for outside of intensive care units may still be at substantial risk for death. Further characterization of previously overlooked acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome patients may suggest new therapeutic opportunities.
机译:目的:关于急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征的报道一般仅限于机械通气的重症监护病房,造成该综合征的流行病学信息不完整。我们试图确定整个医院人群中急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征的发生率和预后。设计:回顾性队列研究。地点:退伍军人事务部医疗中心。患者:所有患者在2年内均符合急性肺损伤或急性呼吸窘迫综合征的标准。干预措施:无。测量和主要结果:在研究期间有11,465例急性内科和外科手术入院。 156例患有急性肺损伤或急性呼吸窘迫综合征。在重症监护病房,只有74(47%)位患者因急性肺损伤而进行有创通气。另外15例(10%)患者因其他原因通气,大约41例(26%)在急性肺损伤发作时入院接受重症监护,但未进行有创通气,并且26例(17%)均未接受通气治疗有创通气或入重症监护病房。四周死亡率因组而异(p = .023),范围从在不进行有创通气的重症监护病房管理的患者中占22%,到因急性肺损伤或急性呼吸窘迫综合征而通气的患者中占50%。到2年时,两组之间的生存差异不再显着。值得注意的是,只有53名(34%)患者符合入选被广泛引用的急性肺损伤干预试验的条件。在研究期间,有10名患者发生了第二次急性肺损伤,相当于每年16%的复发风险。结论:仅限于重症监护病房机械通气的患者的急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征研究大大低估了该综合征的发生率。未通风的患者和在重症监护病房以外照料的患者可能仍然有重大死亡风险。先前被忽视的急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的进一步特征可能提示新的治疗机会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号