BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition characterized by bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and severe hypoxemia. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic values of Club cell protein 16 (CC16) in critical care patients with ARDS.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, 83 patients with ARDS and 129 non‐ARDS patients on ICU admission were enrolled. The differences in serum CC16 and other laboratory indicators between two groups were analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of CC16 as a diagnostic marker on ICU admission were determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The correlation between serum CC16 levels and the severity of ARDS as quantified by PaO2/FiO2 ratio were further assessed. CC16 levels were compared between survivors and non‐survivors. The relationships between CC16 levels and duration of ICU and hospitalization were evaluated.ResultsThe serum CC16 levels in ARDS patients were significantly higher than that in non‐ARDS patients (54.44±19.62 vs 24.13±12.32 ng/mL, P=.001). ROC analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 90.4%, 79.8%, 74.2%, and 92.8%, respectively, when the cut‐off value was set at 33.3 ng/mL. CC16 levels were correlated with the severity of ARDS. The serum CC16 levels were significantly greater in non‐survivors than in survivors from the ARDS group. CC16 levels were associated with ICU stay but not hospital stay.Conclusions CC16 may serve as a diagnostic and stratification marker for ARDS. However, it provided limited prognostic information for ARDS.

Objective. This meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) compared the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) with conventional CPR (CCPR) for adult patients who experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or out-of-hospital CA (OHCA). Methods. A literature search was used to identify eligible publications (up to 30 July 2018) from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase. Two investigators independently conducted the literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. Meta-analysis and TSA were used to analyze each outcome, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the level of evidence. The primary outcome was 30-day survival, and the secondary outcomes were 30-day neurologic outcome, 3-6 months’ survival, 3-6 months’ neurological outcome, 1-year survival, and 1-year neurological outcome. Results. We identified 13 eligible observational studies for the final analysis. Pooled analyses showed that ECPR was associated with a significantly better 30-day survival (RR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.25–2.06) and 30-day neurologic outcome (RR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.63–4.46), and TSA confirmed these results. However, subgroup analysis of patients with OHCA indicated that ECPR and CCPR had similar effects on 30-day survival (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.71–1.97), which was not confirmed by TSA. Analysis of OHCA patients indicated that ECPR provided a better 30-day neurological outcome (RR = 3.93, 95% CI = 1.00–15.50), but TSA did not support these results. Analysis of IHCA patients indicated that ECPR was associated with a better 30-day survival (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.43–2.52) and 30-day neurologic outcome (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.21–3.39), and TSA supported these results. Other subgroup analyses showed that the results were generally consistent, regardless of nation, propensity score matching, presumed etiology, whether the CA was witnessed or not, and study quality. Conclusions. Relative to CCPR, ECPR improved the survival and neurological outcome of patients who had IHCA. Compared to IHCA patients, TSA could not confirm better survival and neurologic outcome of ECPR in OHCA patients, suggesting that further studies are needed. Trial Registration. This trial was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018100513) on 17 July 2018.

Background Contradictory results regarding changes in serum club cell protein 16 (CC16) levels in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been reported, challenging the value of CC16 as a diagnostic and prognostic marker for ARDS. We have also observed increased serum CC16 levels in patients with renal dysfunction (RD). Therefore, the present study aimed to determine whether RD affects the diagnostic performance of CC16 for ARDS in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods We measured serum CC16 concentrations in 479 ICU patients, who were categorized into six groups according to their diagnoses: control, acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), ARDS, ARDS+AKI, and ARDS+CKD. The sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values for serum CC16 were assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results Serum CC16 concentrations were higher in the ARDS group than in the control group, and in ARDS patients with normal renal function, serum CC16 could identify ARDS and predict survival outcomes at 7 and 28 days. However, serum CC16 levels were similar among the ARDS+AKI, ARDS+CKD, AIK, and CKD groups. Consequently, in patients with AKI and/or CKD, the specificity of CC16 for diagnosing ARDS or ARDS+RD decreased from 86.62 to 2.82% or 81.70 to 2.12%, respectively. Consistently, the CC16 cutoff value of 11.57 ng/ml in patients with RD differed from the established values of 32.77–33.72 ng/ml with normal renal function. Moreover, the predictive value of CC16 for mortality in ARDS+RD patients was lost before 7 days but regained by 28 days. Conclusion RD reduces the diagnostic specificity, diagnostic cutoff value, and predictive value for 7-day mortality of serum CC16 for ARDS among ICU patients.