Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29052522›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2017

Predictors of diffuse alveolar damage in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective analysis of clinical autopsies.

Arnaud W Thille, Oscar Peñuelas, José A Lorente, Pilar Fernández-Segoviano, José-Maria Rodriguez, José-Antonio Aramburu, Julian Panizo, Andres Esteban, Fernando Frutos-Vivar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Is postoperative ARDS different from medical ARDS?Critical care (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Panitumumab-induced pulmonary toxicity.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Arnaud W ThilleCHU de Poitiers, Réanimation Médicale, Poitiers, France. aw.thille@gmail.com.
Oscar PeñuelasDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
José A LorenteDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Pilar Fernández-SegovianoDepartamento de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Madrid, Spain.
José-Maria RodriguezDepartamento de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Madrid, Spain.
José-Antonio AramburuDepartamento de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Madrid, Spain.
Julian PanizoDepartamento de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Andres EstebanDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Fernando Frutos-VivarDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario de Getafe · ESCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers · FRCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red · ESUniversidad Europea de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) is considered the typical histological pattern of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), only half of patients exhibit this morphological hallmark. Patients with DAD may have higher mortality than those without DAD. Therefore, we aimed to identify the factors associated with DAD in patients with ARDS.

methodsWe analyzed autopsy samples of 356 patients who had ARDS at the time of death. DAD was assessed by two pathologists, and ARDS criteria were evaluated by two intensivists. Criteria for severe ARDS included the degree of hypoxemia and the ancillary variables of the current Berlin definition assessed within 48 h before death: radiographic severity, high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level, and physiological variables (i.e., altered respiratory system compliance and large anatomic dead space).

resultsAfter multivariable analysis, high PEEP levels, physiological variables, and opacities involving only three quadrants on chest radiographs were not associated with DAD. The four markers independently associated with DAD were (1) duration of evolution (OR 3.29 [1.95-5.55] for patients with ARDS ≥ 3 days, p < 0.001), (2) degree of hypoxemia (OR 3.92 [1.48-10.3] for moderate ARDS and 6.18 [2.34-16.3] for severe ARDS, p < 0.01 for both), (3) increased dynamic driving pressure (OR 1.06 [1.04-1.09], p = 0.007), and (4) radiographic severity (OR 2.91 [1.47-5.75] for patients with diffuse opacities involving the four quadrants, p = 0.002). DAD was found in two-thirds of patients with a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤ 100 mmHg and opacities involving the four quadrants.

conclusionsIn addition to severe hypoxemia, diffuse opacities involving the four quadrants were a strong marker of DAD.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAutopsyFemaleHistological TechniquesHumansHypoxiaLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPositive-Pressure RespirationPulmonary AlveoliRespiratory Distress SyndromeRetrospective StudiesSpainStatistics, NonparametricAcute respiratory distress syndromeDiffuse alveolar damageIntensive care unitMechanical ventilation

Identifiers

PMID29052522
PMCPMC5649062
OpenAlexW2766643685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.