An attempt to validate the modification of the American-European consensus definition of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome by the Berlin definition in a university hospital.

PURPOSE: The Berlin definition for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a new proposal for changing the American-European consensus definition but has not been assessed prospectively as yet. In the present study, we aimed to determine (1) the prevalence and incidence of ARDS with both definitions, and (2) the initial characteristics of patients with ARDS and 28-day mortality with the Berlin definition. METHODS: We performed a 6-month prospective observational study in the ten adult ICUs affiliated to the Public University Hospital in Lyon, France, from March to September 2012. Patients under invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, with PaO2/FiO2 <300 mmHg regardless of the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level, and acute onset of new or increased bilateral infiltrates or opacities on chest X-ray were screened from ICU admission up to discharge. Patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema were excluded. Patients were further classified into specific categories by using the American-European Consensus Conference and the Berlin definition criteria. The complete data set was measured at the time of inclusion. Patient outcome was measured at day 28 after inclusion. RESULTS: During the study period 3,504 patients were admitted and 278 fulfilled the American-European Consensus Conference criteria. Among them, 18 (6.5 %) did not comply with the Berlin criterion PEEP ≥ 5 cmH2O and 20 (7.2 %) had PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤200 while on noninvasive ventilation. By using the Berlin definition in the remaining 240 patients (n = 42 mild, n = 123 moderate, n = 75 severe), the overall prevalence was 6.85 % and it was 1.20, 3.51, and 2.14 % for mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, respectively (P > 0.05 between the three groups). The incidence of ARDS amounted to 32 per 100,000 population per year, with values for mild, moderate, and severe ARDS of 5.6, 16.3, and 10 per 100,000 population per year, respectively (P < 0.05 between the three groups). The 28-day mortality was 35.0 %. It amounted to 30.9 % in mild, 27.9 % in moderate, and 49.3 % in severe categories (P < 0.01 between mild or moderate and severe, P = 0.70 between mild and moderate). In the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis ARDS stage was not significantly associated with patient death at day 28. CONCLUSIONS: The present study did not validate the Berlin definition of ARDS. Neither the stratification by severity nor the PaO2/FiO2 at study entry was independently associated with mortality.

Six-month outcome in acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in the ICU: a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of life (QOL), mortality rate and renal function 6 months after onset of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: This prospective observational study was conducted in seven ICUs in France over 9 months. Inclusion criteria were: age > or =18 years, RRT delivered for AKI and informed consent signed. AKI was defined from the RIFLE score. Recipients of kidney grafts or patients undergoing chronic RRT were not included. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: QOL was assessed using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire together with the Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (0: full assistance to 6: no assistance). SF-36 was compared to a reference age- and sex-matched French population. Patient status, place of residence, and persistence of RRT, ADL and SF-36 were assessed at 28 days, 3 months and 6 months from inclusion. In the study period, 205 patients were included and 1 withdrew. At 6 months, 77/204 were alive (mortality 62%). SF-36 and ADL significantly increased from day 28 to 6 months. In the survivors at 6 months, SF-36 items were significantly lower than in the reference population, with the physical items more severely affected than the mental items; 64% were fully autonomous (ADL score = 6); 69% were living in their homes, and 12% were still undergoing RRT; 94% would agree to undergo the same management again. CONCLUSIONS: ICU survivors from RRT for AKI have an impaired QOL at 6 months, but sustained autonomy in their daily lives.

[Estimating the specificity of a University Hospital Centre. Example of the colonoscopy (EPAGE survey)]. / Evaluer la spécificité d'un centre hospitalo-universitaire. Exemple du recours à la colonoscopie (enquête EPAGE)

OBJECTIVE: The specificity of a University Hospital Centre is usually assessed from its teaching and research capacity. The EPAGE survey, an instrument used to help decision making available on the Internet, permitted us to compare the prescription of a routine exploration, gastrointestinal endoscopy, between the University Hospital Center in Clermont-Ferrand and the Hospital Centre in Moulins. The aim was to demonstrate the differences in daily practice between these two geographically close hospital centres and hence to underline the specificity of a University Hospital Centre that is not taken into account in the financing systems of such hospitals. Method The data collected were taken from the EPAGE trial, a prospective mutlicentre study that included 21 European and Canadian centres. Data was collected from the University Hospital centre in Clermont-Ferrand over two periods: from December 2000 to March 2001, then from December 2001 to February 2002, and from the Hospital Centre in Moulins, from December 2000 to the end of November 2001. For this Article, only the patients' characteristics, indications for gastrointestinal endoscopy and opportunity rate were analysed. Comparison of patients' categories from the 2 centres was conducted according to their DRG (diagnostic related group) (homogeneous patient group) classification, thus allowing calculation of the mean of the SIA (synthetic index of activity) points in the two centres. RESULTS: 221 cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy performed in the University Hospital centre and 292 in the Hospital Centre were included in the survey. No statistically significant difference was found in the reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy, with regard to the indications listed on the EPAGE website. There were 18% of unlisted indications in the University Hospital Centre versus 4.8% in the Hospital Centre (p<1.10-6). Using the DRG nomenclature, calculation of the mean SIA points at the University Hospital Centre per patient was of 1161 versus 1147: non significant deviation of 1.2% in favour of the University Hospital Centre. DISCUSSION: - Conclusion The difference in reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy found between the two centres concerned rare, complex or innovating situations. This illustrates the role of a Regional Reference University Hospital Centre, an aspect clearly underestimated when measuring mixed cases according to the HPG. Study of the financing and/or information systems is warranted and might resolve the apparent underestimation of the current financing system.