4.7 Article

Relationship between Mechanical Ventilation and Histological Fibrosis in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Undergoing Open Lung Biopsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12030474

关键词

mechanical ventilation; acute respiratory distress syndrome; open lung biopsy; histology; diffuse alveolar damage; pulmonary fibrosis; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; outcomes

资金

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CMRPG3K1151, CMRPG3L0821]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that prompt action to prevent injurious mechanical stretching of lung tissue and subsequent fibrosis may have a positive impact on clinical outcomes.
Background: Mechanical ventilation brings the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury, which can lead to pulmonary fibrosis and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who received open lung biopsy between March 2006 and December 2019. Results: A total of 68 ARDS patients receiving open lung biopsy with diffuse alveolar damage (DAD; the hallmark pathology of ARDS) were analyzed and stratified into non-fibrosis (n = 56) and fibrosis groups (n = 12). The duration of ventilator usage and time spent in the intensive care unit and hospital stay were all significantly higher in the fibrosis group. Hospital mortality was higher in the fibrosis than in the non-fibrosis group (67% vs. 57%, p = 0.748). A multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that mechanical power at ARDS diagnosis and ARDS duration before biopsy were independently associated with histological fibrosis at open lung biopsy (odds ratio 1.493 (95% CI 1.014-2.200), p = 0.042; odds ratio 1.160 (95% CI 1.052-1.278), p = 0.003, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that prompt action aimed at staving off injurious mechanical stretching of lung parenchyma and subsequent progression to fibrosis may have a positive effect on clinical outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据