Search

BACKGROUND: We aimed to test the performance of PRESERVE and RESP scores to predict death in patients with severe ARDS receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with different case mixes. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with ECMO for refractory ARDS, regardless of cause, in the Caen University Hospital in northwestern France over the last decade were included in a retrospective cohort study. The receiver operating characteristic curves of each score were plotted, and the area under the curve was computed to assess their performance in predicting mortality (c-index). RESULTS: Forty-one subjects were included. Pre-ECMO ventilator settings were: mean VT, 6.1 ± 0.9 mL/kg; breathing frequency, 32 ± 4 breaths/min; PEEP, 11 ± 4 cm H2O; peak inspiratory pressure, 48 ± 9 cm H2O; plateau pressure, 30.4 ± 4.4 cm H2O. At ECMO initiation, blood gas results were: pH 7.22 ± 0.17, PaO2/... = 63 ± 22 mm Hg; ... = 56 ± 18 mm Hg; ... = 99 ± 2%. Pre-ECMO data were available in 35 and 27 subjects for calculation of the PRESERVE score and RESP score, respectively. Pre-ECMO scoring system results were: median PRESERVE score, 4 (interquartile range 2-5), and median RESP score, 0 (interquartile range -2 to 2). Twenty-three subjects (56%) died, including 19 receiving ECMO. In univariate analysis, plateau pressure (P = .031), driving pressure (P = <.001), and compliance (P = .02) recorded at the time of ECMO initiation as well as the PRESERVE score (P = .032) were significantly associated with mortality. With a c-index of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53-0.87), the PRESERVE score had better discrimination than the RESP score (c-index of 0.60 [95% CI 0.41-0.78]) for predicting mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of these scores in helping physicians to determine the patients with ARDS most likely to benefit from ECMO should be limited in clinical practice because of their relatively poor performance in predicting death in subjects with severe ARDS receiving ECMO support. Before widespread use is initiated, these scoring systems should be tested in large prospective studies of subjects with severe ARDS undergoing ECMO treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Data on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in intensive care unit (ICU) are scarce and controversial. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of CI-AKI in a surgical ICU., Materials and Methods: We conducted a 13-month prospective observational study. Three definitions were compared to characterize CI-AKI: Barrett and Parfrey criteria; Risk of renal dysfunction, Injury to the kidney, Failure of kidney function, Loss of kidney function and End stage renal disease (RIFLE) classification; and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria. Patients hospitalized in surgical ICU who had received an injection of contrast medium, who were not on renal replacement therapy, who had stable serum creatinine before injection, and no other etiology for new acute kidney injury were included., Results: One hundred one patients were included. The frequency of CI-AKI was 17%, 19%, and 19% according to Barrett and Parfrey criteria; RIFLE classification; and AKIN criteria, respectively. Diabetes mellitus, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min, and concomitant aminoglycoside administration were associated with CI-AKI. Statistically significant associations were found between CI-AKI and renal replacement therapy with all 3 definitions and between CI-AKI and mortality when AKIN criteria were used., Conclusions: These results show that CI-AKI is not inconsequential in critically ill patients. In the present study, AKIN criteria appear to be most relevant to define CI-AKI. Further studies are required to explore CI-AKI prevention in ICU., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)