Search

Rationale: Cigarette smoking is associated with increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients after severe trauma; however, the mechanisms underlying this association are unknown., Objectives: To determine whether cigarette smoking contributes to ARDS development after trauma by altering community composition of the lung microbiota., Methods: We studied the lung microbiota of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU after severe blunt trauma. To do so, we used 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequencing of endotracheal aspirate samples obtained on ICU admission (n = 74) and at 48 hours after admission (n = 30). Cigarette smoke exposure (quantified using plasma cotinine), ARDS development, and other clinical parameters were correlated with lung microbiota composition., Measurements and Main Results: Smoking status was significantly associated with lung bacterial community composition at ICU admission (P = 0.007 by permutational multivariate ANOVA [PERMANOVA]) and at 48 hours (P = 0.03 by PERMANOVA), as well as with significant enrichment of potential pathogens, including Streptococcus, Fusobacterium, Prevotella, Haemophilus, and Treponema. ARDS development was associated with lung community composition at 48 hours (P = 0.04 by PERMANOVA) and was characterized by relative enrichment of Enterobacteriaceae and of specific taxa enriched at baseline in smokers, including Prevotella and Fusobacterium., Conclusions: After severe blunt trauma, a history of smoking is related to lung microbiota composition, both at the time of ICU admission and at 48 hours. ARDS development is also correlated with respiratory microbial community structure at 48 hours and with taxa that are relatively enriched in smokers at ICU admission. The data derived from this pilot study suggest that smoking-related changes in the lung microbiota could be related to ARDS development after severe trauma.

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is associated with worse neurologic outcomes and longer hospitalization. However, the incidence and associated causes of ARDS in isolated TBI have not been well studied., Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of 210 consecutive patients with isolated severe TBI enrolled in a prospective observational cohort at a Level 1 trauma center between 2005 and 2014. Subjects required endotracheal intubation and had isolated severe TBI defined by a head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater and AIS score lower than 3 in all other categories. ARDS within the first 8 days of admission was rigorously adjudicated using Berlin criteria. Regression analyses were used to test the association between predictors of interest and ARDS., Results: The incidence of ARDS in the first 8 days after severe isolated TBI was 30%. Patients who developed ARDS were administered more crystalloids (4.3 L vs. 3.5 L, p = 0.005) and blood products in the first 12 hours of admission. Patients with ARDS had significantly worse clinical outcomes measured at 28 days, including longer median intensive care unit and hospital stays (4 days vs. 13 days, p < 0.001, and 7.5 days vs. 14.5 days, p < 0.001, respectively). In unadjusted logistic regression analyses, the odds of developing ARDS were significantly associated with head AIS score (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; p = 0.018), male sex (OR, 2.9; p = 0.012), and early transfusion of platelets (OR, 2.8; p = 0.003). These associations were similar in a multivariate logistic regression model., Conclusion: In the era of balanced hemostatic resuscitation practices, severity of head injury, male sex, early crystalloids, and early transfusion of platelets are associated with a higher risk of ARDS after severe isolated TBI. Early transfusion of platelets after severe TBI may be a modifiable risk factor for ARDS, and these findings invite further investigation into causal mechanisms driving this observed association., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Background: Adherence to rigorous research protocols for identifying adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after trauma is variable. To examine how misclassification of ARDS may bias observational studies in trauma populations, we evaluated the agreement of two methods for adjudicating ARDS after trauma: the current gold standard, direct review of chest radiographs and review of dictated radiology reports, a commonly used alternative., Methods: This nested cohort study included 123 mechanically ventilated patients between 2005 and 2008, with at least one PaO2/FIO2 less than 300 within the first 8 days of admission. Two blinded physician investigators adjudicated ARDS by two methods. The investigators directly reviewed all chest radiographs to evaluate for bilateral infiltrates. Several months later, blinded to their previous assessments, they adjudicated ARDS using a standardized rubric to classify radiology reports. A κ statistics was calculated. Regression analyses quantified the association between established risk factors as well as important clinical outcomes and ARDS determined by the aforementioned methods as well as hypoxemia as a surrogate marker., Results: The κ was 0.47 for the observed agreement between ARDS adjudicated by direct review of chest radiographs and ARDS adjudicated by review of radiology reports. Both the magnitude and direction of bias on the estimates of association between ARDS and established risk factors as well as clinical outcomes varied by method of adjudication., Conclusion: Classification of ARDS by review of dictated radiology reports had only moderate agreement with the current gold standard, ARDS adjudicated by direct review of chest radiographs. While the misclassification of ARDS had varied effects on the estimates of associations with established risk factors, it tended to weaken the association of ARDS with important clinical outcomes. A standardized approach to ARDS adjudication after trauma by direct review of chest radiographs will minimize misclassification bias in future observational studies., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic study, level II.

Background: Massive haemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable deaths in trauma. Traumatic coagulopathy is frequently present early after trauma, and is associated with increased mortality. A number of recent trials suggest that viscoelastic haemostatic assays (VHA), such as thromboelastography and thromboelastometry, are useful tools in guiding transfusion. Treatment algorithms exist for the use of VHAs but are not validated in traumatic haemorrhage. In this study we examined the inter-changeability of two commonly used VHAs, TEG(®) and RoTEM(®)., Methods: A total of 184 trauma patients over the age of 18, requiring full trauma team activation, were included at three different hospitals in three different countries (Copenhagen, Denmark, San Francisco, CA, USA and Oslo, Norway). Blood samples were drawn immediately upon arrival, and TEG(®) and RoTEM(®) analyzed simultaneously. Correlations were calculated using. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Agreement was evaluated by Bland-Altman plots and calculation of limits of agreement., Results: The mean ISS in the total population was 17, and the mortality was 16.5%. Mean base excess was -2.8 (SD: 4.2). The correlation coefficient for corresponding values for the two devices was 0.24 for the R-time vs CT in all centres combined. For the K-time vs CFT the correlation was 0.48, for the α-angleTEG vs α-angleRoTEM 0.44, and for MA vs MCF 0.76. Limits of agreement exceeded the preset clinically acceptable deviation of 10% for all variables in all centres except for MA/MCF in one centre (Copenhagen). Generally, correlation coefficients were lower and agreement poorer in the one centre (Oslo) where measurements were performed bedside by clinicians., Conclusion: Inter-changeability between TEG(®) and RoTEM(®) is limited in the trauma setting. Agreement seems poorer when clinicians operate the devices. Development and validation of separate treatment algorithms for the two devices is required., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)