Hypoxaemic rescue therapies in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Why, when, what and which one?

The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3181, Australia. Electronic address: .
Injury (Impact Factor: 2.14). 12/2012; 44(12). DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.11.017
Source: PubMed


Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an inflammatory condition of the lungs which can result in refractory and life-threatening hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The risk factors for the development of ARDS are many but include trauma, multiple blood transfusions, burns and major surgery, therefore this condition is not uncommon in the severely injured patient. When ARDS is severe, high-inspired oxygen concentrations are frequently required to minimise hypoxaemia. In these situations clinicians commonly utilise interventions termed 'hypoxaemic rescue therapies' in an attempt to improve oxygenation, as without these, conventional mechanical ventilation can be associated with high mortality. However, their lack of efficacy on mortality when used prophylactically in generalised ARDS cohorts has resulted in their use being confined to clinical trials and the subset of ARDS patients with refractory hypoxaemia. First line hypoxaemic rescue therapies include inhaled nitric oxide, prone positioning, alveolar recruitment manoeuvres and high frequency oscillatory ventilation, which have all been shown to be effective in improving oxygenation. In situations where these first line rescue therapies are inadequate extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation has emerged as a lifesaving second line rescue therapy. Rescue therapies in critically ill patients with traumatic injuries presents specific challenges and requires careful assessment of both the short and longer term benefits, therapeutic limitations, and specific adverse effects before their use.

11 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An association between hypoxemia and poor outcomes from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is well documented. However, it is unclear whether hyperoxygenation is beneficial. This registry-based analysis explores the relationship between early hypoxemia and hyperoxemia on outcome from moderate-to-severe TBI. TBI patients (Abbreviated Injury Scale score 3+) were identified from the San Diego County trauma registry. Patients were stratified by arrival partial oxygen pressure (Po(2)) value. Trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) was then used to calculate predicted survival for each patient, with the mean observed-predicted survival differential determined for each arrival Po(2) stratification. Logistic regression was used to quantify the relationship between hypoxemia, hyperoxemia, and outcome from TBI after adjusting for multiple variables including intubation and ventilation status. A total of 3420 patients were included in the analysis. TRISS calculations revealed worse outcomes than predicted for both hypoxemia and extreme hyperoxemia. Logistic regression revealed an optimal Po(2) range (110-487 mm Hg), with an independent association observed between decreased survival and both hypoxemia (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.69; p < 0.001) and extreme hyperoxemia (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36, 0.71; p < 0.001). The association between hypoxemia and extreme hyperoxemia and worse outcomes was also present with use of "good outcomes" as the outcome variable (discharge to home, rehabilitation, jail, or psychiatric facility, or leaving against medical advice). We conclude that both hypoxemia and extreme hyperoxemia are associated with increased mortality and a decrease in good outcomes among TBI patients.
    Journal of neurotrauma 10/2009; 26(12):2217-23. DOI:10.1089/neu.2009.0940 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • 08/2013; 58(8):1386-7. DOI:10.4187/respcare.02662
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is one of the most invasive rescue therapies for acute heart and/or lung failure. Survivors have high rates of adverse mental health outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and manifest post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet no study to date has identified and explored PTSD risk factors in these patients.
    Australian Critical Care 05/2014; 28(1). DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2014.04.005 · 1.56 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications