Publication:
ARDS: Challenges in patient care and frontiers in research

dc.contributor.authorLieuwe D. Bosen_US
dc.contributor.authorIgnacio Martin-Loechesen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarcus J. Schultzen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherTrinity College Dublinen_US
dc.contributor.otherAmsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdamen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-28T06:17:26Z
dc.date.available2019-08-28T06:17:26Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-31en_US
dc.description.abstract© ERS 2018. This review discusses the clinical challenges associated with ventilatory support and pharmacological interventions in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In addition, it discusses current scientific challenges facing researchers when planning and performing trials of ventilatory support or pharmacological interventions in these patients. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation is used in some patients with ARDS. When intubated and mechanically ventilated, ARDS patients should be ventilated with low tidal volumes. A plateau pressure <30 cmH2O is recommended in all patients. It is suggested that a plateau pressure <15 cmH2O should be considered safe. Patient with moderate and severe ARDS should receive higher levels of positive endexpiratory pressure (PEEP). Rescue therapies include prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents. Extracorporeal support for decapneisation and oxygenation should only be considered when lungprotective ventilation is no longer possible, or in cases of refractory hypoxaemia, respectively. Tracheotomy is only recommended when prolonged mechanical ventilation is expected. Of all tested pharmacological interventions for ARDS, only treatment with steroids is considered to have benefit. Proper identification of phenotypes, known to respond differently to specific interventions, is increasingly considered important for clinical trials of interventions for ARDS. Such phenotypes could be defined based on clinical parameters, such as the arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio, but biological marker profiles could be more promising.en_US
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Respiratory Review. Vol.27, No.147 (2018)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1183/16000617.0107-2017en_US
dc.identifier.issn16000617en_US
dc.identifier.issn09059180en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85041298716en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46820
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85041298716&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleARDS: Challenges in patient care and frontiers in researchen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85041298716&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections