4.6 Article

Diabetic patients have a decreased incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Journal

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 2187-2192

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200007000-00001

Keywords

acute respiratory distress syndrome; diabetes mellitus; sepsis; critical care; neutrophil; mechanical ventilation; hyperglycemia; inflammation

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL30542, HL40784] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Our ability to predict which critically ill patients will develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is imprecise. Based on the effects of diabetes mellitus on the inflammatory cascade, we hypothesized that a history of diabetes might alter the incidence of ARDS. Design: A prospective multicenter study. Setting: Intensive care units at four university medical centers. Patients: One hundred thirteen consecutive patients with septic shock. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: All patients were prospectively followed during their intensive care course for the development of ARDS, A history of diabetes was identified in 28% (32/113) of the patients, In this study, nondiabetics were more likely to develop septic shock from a pulmonary source (48%, 39/81) compared with diabetics (25%, 8/32) (p = .02), Forty-one percent (46/113) of the patients with septic shock developed ARDS, forty-seven percent of the nondiabetic patients developed ARDS compared with only 25% of those with diabetes (p = .03, relative risk = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.98), In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, when we adjusted for several variables including source of infection, the effect of diabetes on the incidence of ARDS remained significant (p = .03, odds ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.90), Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, a history of diabetes is associated with a lower risk of developing ARDS compared with nondiabetics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available