Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

IntroductionIn patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed a consistent trend of mortality reduction with prone ventilation. We updated a meta-analysis on this topic.MethodsRCTs that compared ventilation of adult patients with ALI/ARDS in prone versus supine position were included in this study-level meta-analysis. Analysis was made by a random-effects model. The effect size on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was computed in the overall included studies and in two subgroups of studies: those that included all ALI or hypoxemic patients, and those that restricted inclusion to only ARDS patients. A relationship between studies' effect size and daily prone duration was sought with meta-regression. We also computed the effects of prone positioning on major adverse airway complications.ResultsSeven RCTs (including 1,675 adult patients, of whom 862 were ventilated in the prone position) were included. The four most recent trials included only ARDS patients, and also applied the longest proning durations and used lung-protective ventilation. The effects of prone positioning differed according to the type of study. Overall, prone ventilation did not reduce ICU mortality (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 1.2; P = 0.39), but it significantly reduced the ICU mortality in the four recent studies that enrolled only patients with ARDS (odds ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.5 to 0.99; P = 0.048; number needed to treat = 11). Meta-regression on all studies disclosed only a trend to explain effect variation by prone duration (P = 0.06). Prone positioning was not associated with a statistical increase in major airway complications.ConclusionsLong duration of ventilation in prone position significantly reduces ICU mortality when only ARDS patients are considered.

No abstract

Recommendation of the use of systemic steroids in chronic obstructive disease (COPD) exacerbation rely on trials that excluded patients requiring ventilatory support.In an open-label, randomised evaluation of oral prednisone administration, 217 patients with acute COPD exacerbation requiring ventilatory support were randomised (with stratification on the type of ventilation) to usual care (n5106) or to receive a daily dose of prednisone (1 mg?kg -1 ) for up to 10 days (n5111).There was no difference regarding the primary end-point, intensive care unit mortality, which was 17 (15.3%) deaths versus 15 (14%) deaths in the steroid-treated and control groups, respectively (relative risk 1.08, 95% CI 0.6-2.05). Analysis according to ventilation modalities showed similar mortality rates. Noninvasive ventilation failed in 15.7% and 12.7% (relative risk 1.25, 95% CI 0.56-2.8; p50.59), respectively. Both study groups had similar median mechanical ventilation duration and intensive care unit length of stay, which were 6 (interquartile range 6-12) days versus 6 (3.8-12) days and 9 (6-14) days versus 8 (6-14) days, respectively. Hyperglycaemic episodes requiring initiation or alteration of current insulin doses occurred in 55 (49.5%) patients versus 35 (33%) patients in the prednisone and control groups, respectively (relative risk 1.5, 95% CI 1.08-2.08; p50.015).Prednisone did not improve intensive care unit mortality or patient-centred outcomes in the selected subgroup of COPD patients with severe exacerbation but significantly increased the risk of hyperglycaemia. @ERSpublications In COPD exacerbation needing ventilatory support, prednisone has no impact on ICU mortality or related patient outcome