Share this article on:

Reducing the Burden of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Case for Early Intervention and the Potential Role of the Emergency Department

Fuller, Brian M.*; Mohr, Nicholas M.; Hotchkiss, Richard S.; Kollef, Marin H.§

doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000142
Review Article
Editor's Choice

ABSTRACT The mortality for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains unacceptably high. Success in clinical trials has been limited, resulting in a lack of effective therapies to treat the syndrome. The projected increase in mechanically ventilated patients and global need for critical care services suggests that the clinical and research landscape in ARDS can no longer be confined to the intensive care unit. A demonstrable minority of patients present to the emergency department (ED) with ARDS, and ARDS onset typically occurs shortly after intensive care unit admission. Furthermore, the ED is an entry point for many of the highest-risk patients for ARDS development and progression. These facts, combined with prolonged lengths of stay in the ED, suggest that the ED could represent a window of opportunity for treatment and preventive strategies, as well as clinical trial enrollment. This review aims to discuss some of the potential strategies that may prevent or alter the trajectory of ARDS, with a focus on the potential role the ED could play in reducing the burden of this syndrome.

*Divisions of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri; Departments of Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa; Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesiology, and §Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri

Received 16 Nov 2013; first review completed 3 Dec 2013; accepted in final form 13 Jan 2014

Address reprint requests to Brian M. Fuller, MD, MSCI, 660 S Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8072, St Louis, MO 63110. E-mail:

Sources of support: B.M.F. was supported by the Emergency Medicine Grant-in-Aid from the Division of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, and the Postdoctoral Mentored Training Program in Clinical Investigation. This publication was made possible, in part, by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), through grant UL1 TR000448. N.M.M. declares no support. R.S.H. was supported by NIH grants GM 44118 and GM 55194. M.H.K. was supported by the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or any of the other supporting bodies.

Conflicts of interest: B.M.F., N.M.M., and M.H.K. declare no conflicts of interest. R.S.H. reports receiving grant support from MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Agennix, and Aurigene.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The landscape of critical care provided in the emergency department

Decades ago, delivery of critical care was envisioned to extend from the prehospital environment and into the intensive care unit (ICU). The emergency department (ED) was recognized as an important link in the care of the critically ill (1). Today, with more than 100 million visits annually and increasing lengths of stay before inpatient admission, critical care is being provided in the ED more than ever (2, 3). With higher acuity in patient presentation, scarcity of available critical care beds, and impact of ED lengths of stay on critical care outcomes, the ED has become an increasingly important treatment location for the critically ill (3–9). Overcrowding is a recognized threat to patient safety, and delays in admission of critically ill patients to the ICU suggest that targeted interventions should be provided as soon as possible, regardless of patient location (4). Although time spent in the ED is a small fraction of the total inpatient stay, several series have demonstrated the early period of critical illness as being a particularly vulnerable time, where appropriate interventions have potential to change morbidity and mortality (10–12). Given these realities, the ED has proven to be an ideal setting to conduct research of early critical illness (11, 13).

This research agenda has yet to extend to mechanical ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to any great degree, however (14). Observational data suggest that the onset of ARDS is within hours to days after ICU admission (15–19). Endotracheal intubation and initiation of mechanical ventilation are common in the ED (20). Despite this, there is a lack of evidence regarding mechanical ventilation practices in the ED or the effect of ED care and mechanical ventilation on ARDS progression and outcome (12, 21). Therapeutic momentum initiated in the ED is often continued after admission (11, 12, 22). Given the influence of early interventions on outcome with other time-sensitive emergencies (e.g., sepsis and trauma), there is potential that this paradigm can be extended to ARDS prevention and treatment as well. The aim of this review is to discuss some of the early interventions that can potentially prevent or alter the trajectory of ARDS, with some focus on the potential role the ED may play in the care of patients with or at risk for ARDS.

Back to Top | Article Outline

The current landscape of ARDS

ED prevalence and rate of progression after admission

Acute respiratory distress syndrome affects close to 200,000 patients annually in the United States and, despite an overall improvement in mortality, remains a highly lethal condition (23, 24). Survivors of ARDS exhibit long-term morbidity across a wide range of important clinical outcomes; therefore, its impact on public health is significant (23, 24). Despite extensive research, only low tidal volume ventilation has shown consistent survival benefit across syndrome severity, with prone positioning beneficial in the sickest ARDS cohort when instituted early and for prolonged periods (25–27). Prior clinical trials have focused extensively on patients in the ICU, less so in the operating room (OR), and little to none in the ED (14). Limited observational data focusing exclusively on ED patients suggest that a significant minority of patients have ARDS while in the ED, with a prevalence rate of 8.8% in mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (a high-risk cohort for the syndrome) (12). Larger observational studies of early ARDS have estimated an ED ARDS prevalence between 7% and 8.7% (21, 28).

Progression to ARDS represents a seminal event for the critically ill patient that not only worsens pulmonary function (Fig. 1), but also increases morbidity and mortality (14). At the intersection between patient risk and treatment variables, ARDS can be insidious and cryptic in onset and often goes unrecognized by treating clinicians; this underrecognition of ARDS may contribute to the suboptimal translation of outcome-improving evidence to the bedside (Fig. 2) (29–32). Risk factors for progression to ARDS have been described for decades, yet predicting ARDS at an individual patient level can be difficult. Acute respiratory distress syndrome, despite a consensus definition of the syndrome, is likely not a “yes/no” diagnosis, but rather a spectrum of inflammatory pulmonary failure. Patients progressing to ARDS have higher levels of inflammatory markers, both in bronchoalveolar lavage and serum (33). Imaging studies have shown high levels of neutrophilic inflammation in patients at risk for ARDS, but in whom the definitional criteria have not been met (NCT01486342). These data suggest that patients at high risk for ARDS have “preinjured” lungs, and the progression to ARDS is a potentially modifiable continuum (Fig. 3). A prospective, multicenter observational cohort study assessing patient conditions and risk modifiers created a lung injury prediction score, identifying patients at high risk (34). Emergency department–based studies suggest an ARDS progression rate after admission of 27.5% in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (12). Cohort studies from the ICU and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) have cited an ARDS progression rate of 6.2% to 44% with a median onset of approximately 2 days (14, 33, 35). The prevalence of ARDS after ED admission, as well as the early onset, further suggests that therapeutic interventions in critically ill patients should not be constrained by the geographic location of the patient in a hospital. The time spent and treatment provided in the ED, and early ICU could potentially alter the course of ARDS.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Therapy to alter the trajectory of ARDS

Mechanical ventilation strategies

Tidal volume

Normal mammalian tidal volume, indexed to size, is less than 7 mL/kg and was the tidal volume target used in a landmark ARDS clinical trial (25, 36). The success of that trial comparing relatively normal tidal volume to a “conventional” tidal volume showed that essentially normal tidal volume improved outcome. Despite the short- and long-term outcome benefit of low tidal volume ventilation in ARDS, adherence to this strategy in ICU patients remains poor (32). In patients without ARDS, there is no consensus on the most appropriate tidal volume to use, and this represents an area of debate (37–40). In patients at very low risk for ARDS, especially with an exposure time to mechanical ventilation that is limited (e.g., healthy elective surgical patients), the chosen tidal volume strategy may not be clinically important (41). However, an increase in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage biomarkers suggests that deleterious mechanical ventilation can induce lung damage even with very time-limited ventilation (42–46). Recent data also showed that lung-protective ventilation in the OR was associated with a decrease in the composite outcome of major pulmonary complications and a trend in reduction of ARDS in elective abdominal surgical patients (47).

In contrast to most OR patients, mechanically ventilated ED patients will be admitted to the ICU and have a much longer exposure to mechanical ventilation (12). In these preinjured lungs, conventional tidal volume may serve as another “hit,” promoting the development of ARDS after ICU admission (33). Many mechanically ventilated ED patients are exposed to high tidal volume, and lung-protective ventilation is uncommon in these patients (12, 21).

Clinical data suggest a causal link to tidal volume and ARDS progression in critically ill patients (15, 16, 18, 33, 48–50). In the only randomized ICU trial on this topic to date, ventilation with 6 mL/kg predicted body weight versus 10 mL/kg predicted body weight showed a 10.9% absolute risk reduction for ARDS progression, although the trial was stopped early for safety (33, 51). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed a decrease in ARDS development with the use of lower tidal volume (52). Another systematic review, which included only studies examining tidal volume in isolation, also showed that the majority of data suggest that higher tidal volume is associated with ARDS progression (14). These findings are physiologically consistent with RCTs demonstrating that ventilation with lower tidal volume reduces mortality in existing ARDS (25, 53, 54). These reviews also showed that the use of low tidal volume in the OR and ICU is not harmful in patients without ARDS (14, 52). A similar safety profile should be seen in the ED, given that respiratory rate is adjusted to meet metabolic and ventilatory demands, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is used to prevent atelectasis (55).

Given the risk of progression to ARDS after emergency admission, the early progression to ARDS after admission from the ED, and a lack of ED mechanical ventilation trials, low tidal volume ventilation initiated in the ED should be studied further.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Positive end-expiratory pressure

Repetitive opening and closing of alveolar units at low lung volumes can contribute to injury (i.e., atelectrauma). In patients with hypoxia due to atelectasis, alveolar edema, and/or volume loss, PEEP serves to restore functional residual capacity and prevent end-expiratory volume loss (derecruitment) (56). Animal and ex vivo lung model data have shown that PEEP can protect the lung when compared with no, or very little, PEEP (57, 58). Beyond that, the optimal level to set PEEP is less clear. In patients with established ARDS already receiving low tidal volume ventilation, higher PEEP levels were not associated with improved clinical outcomes, although a systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that patients with more severe ARDS may benefit from higher PEEP (59–62).

The majority of patients in the ED in our center are treated with a PEEP of 5 cm H2O (12). In OR patients, higher PEEP levels are associated with a decrease in inflammatory mediators, suggesting that a potential biological signal for protection exists (44, 63). Higher levels of PEEP will improve oxygenation and lung compliance, but the use of higher PEEP in all patients to prevent lung injury cannot be recommended at this time, as it is possible that higher PEEP may overdistend ventral lung units and promote lung injury (60–62, 64). However, obesity is a known risk factor for ARDS development, as these patients have elevated pleural pressure and are therefore prone to end-expiratory alveolar collapse (12, 65). These patients may be better suited to higher PEEP levels for ARDS prevention, as well as frequent repositioning, and the use of prophylactic prone or semiprone position (55, 66).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Airway pressure release ventilation

The manner in which the lung is strained influences the development of lung injury. Repetitive, breath-by-breath tidal ventilation appears to be more damaging than static strain and deformation (67–69). Whereas conventional modes of mechanical ventilation elevate airway pressure up from a set baseline to accomplish tidal ventilation, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) uses sustained pressure over time to maintain recruitment and mean airway pressure. In an animal model, the early application of APRV before clinical lung injury resulted in less pulmonary inflammation and edema, with preserved gross and histological lung architecture (70, 71). The clinical application of this mode of ventilation in a single center has been associated with low incidence of ARDS in a trauma population as well, but no controlled human studies have uniformly supported this practice (72). There is a theoretical concern for uncontrolled, large tidal volumes with APRV, as manifested by large volumes during the release phase. How these large volumes potentially contribute to lung injury, given the more static nature of APRV, is not fully known.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Noninvasive ventilation

The use of noninvasive ventilation is common in ED patients with dyspnea and has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with reversible causes of respiratory failure, such as cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (73, 74). Data supporting its use in prevention of ARDS are less robust. Several small studies have shown a decrease in intubation rates with early application of noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients (75, 76). However, given the limited data, and with a failure rate of close to 50% in lung injury patients, the use of noninvasive ventilation should be assessed on an individual patient-level basis, with frequent reassessment of pulmonary mechanics in effort to avoid delay of appropriate and timely endotracheal intubation (77). Delayed intubation, in favor of a trial of noninvasive ventilation, has been associated with an increased incidence in adverse events, such as cardiac arrest, nosocomial pneumonia, and stress ulcers (78).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Nonventilatory strategies

Fluid management

The Berlin definition of ARDS removed the requirement for a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of 18 mmHg or less to distinguish between ARDS and volume overload (79). This change was more of a reflection of the limitations of that hemodynamic parameter and the declining use of pulmonary artery catheters, rather than demoting the importance of fluid in ARDS pathophysiology. Elevated left atrial pressure and ARDS frequently coexist, suggesting that any increase in edema-promoting forces can increase edema and worsen pulmonary function (80). Edema in injured lungs is both oncotic (e.g., capillary leak) and hydrostatic in nature. This suggests (based on Starling forces) that actively lowering hydrostatic pressures (or at minimum preventing unnecessary volume administration) should be beneficial. The association between volume excess and clinical outcomes across multiple patients cohorts (e.g., sepsis, mechanical ventilation, elective surgery, and acute kidney injury) is being increasingly recognized (81–88).

With respect to ARDS, many clinical scenarios that predispose to the syndrome can be associated with extensive fluid requirements during resuscitation (e.g., septic shock and trauma). Although it seems paradoxical that aggressive fluid resuscitation could decrease ARDS, this highlights the importance of timing in fluid administration. In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, early “aggressive” fluid administration was associated with a decrease in the need for mechanical ventilation, as well as decreased inflammatory biomarkers, suggesting that early reversal of global tissue hypoxia promotes pulmonary integrity at an endothelial and epithelial level (11, 89). In a cohort study of patients with lung injury and sepsis, achievement of early adequate fluid resuscitation and late conservative fluid management was associated with the greatest survival benefit (90). In a randomized trial of patients with pulmonary edema, a lower fluid balance was associated with fewer ventilator and ICU days (91). With the use of a conservative fluid strategy and diuresis, the Fluids and Catheter Treatment Trial increased ventilator-free days with no deleterious effect on organ perfusion in hemodynamically stable ARDS patients (92).

Observational data from both the ICU and OR suggest that fluid management is associated with progression to ARDS as well (18, 93–96). Fluid administration improves perfusion only if it increases stroke volume, and only about 50% of ICU patients are preload-responsive (97). Once early tissue hypoperfusion is corrected, a conservative fluid strategy and diuresis should be favored. At a minimum, further fluid administration should be discouraged. The general consensus for most critically ill ED patients at risk for ARDS is that early liberal fluid administration to reverse tissue hypoperfusion should be used when preload responsiveness has been established. An unanswered question includes the true incidence of preload responsiveness in critically ill ED patients at risk for ARDS.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Blood product transfusion

The use of blood products is associated with progression to ARDS in at-risk patients. As an inflammatory syndrome characterized by alveolar epithelial and vascular endothelial injury, ARDS is notable for early neutrophil sequestration in the lung (98). Transfusion of blood product is associated with transmission of leukocyte antibodies and biologically active mediators (e.g., lipids and cytokines), thought to play a role in the pathogenesis of transfusion-associated acute lung injury (TRALI). The diagnosis of classic TRALI requires a clear temporal relationship to transfusion, with signs and symptoms occurring within 6 h. Observational data suggest a classic TRALI incidence of close to 10% in critically ill patients (99, 100). However, in critically ill patients, multiple studies have shown the transfusion of any amount of blood product to be associated with the progression to ARDS in at-risk patients (15, 17–19, 49, 101–105). Expanding the definition of TRALI beyond 6 h (i.e., delayed TRALI syndrome) shows that lung injury may occur in up to 25% of critically ill patients within 72 h of receiving a blood transfusion (106). Recipient and transfusion risk factors, such as female donors, suggest that this incidence is modifiable, and potential targets exist for reducing TRALI (107).

There has been a general decrease in transfusion in the ICU, but transfusion patterns and influence of ED transfusion on ARDS have remained largely unexplored. Extrapolation of data from ICU patients without ARDS at the time of admission suggests early transfusion plays a role in ARDS development (15, 17–19, 49). However, in many of these observational studies, ARDS progression was also associated with other factors (e.g., higher tidal volumes, fluid balance, etc.), highlighting the complex pathophysiologic interactions in ARDS development (14). Similar to fluid administration, transfusion may also depend on timing of administration. Early administration of packed red blood cells as part of a quantitative resuscitation strategy for severe sepsis was associated with a decrease in mechanical ventilation, or a trend in that direction, in the majority of published data (11, 108). However, these trials were not designed to isolate the effect of transfusion. Packed red blood cell administration in this clinical scenario is aimed at improving low central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2). Observational data suggest that transfusion does not improve ScvO2 or organ function (109). In our opinion, given the fact that the weight of evidence does not show a benefit with packed red blood cell transfusion, the decision to transfuse should be individualized at the patient level, as opposed to a priori hematocrit triggers. Transfusion should be reserved only for anemic patients with persistent evidence of tissue hypoperfusion, after a careful assessment of risk-benefit ratio. Ongoing multicenter trials (e.g., Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock [ProCESS], NCT00510835) will hopefully better define the risk-benefit ratio of potential harm associated with early transfusion versus persistent global tissue hypoxia (which transfusion may improve).

Back to Top | Article Outline

No pharmacological agent designed to alter the primary pathophysiology of ARDS (i.e., beyond supportive care) has improved clinical outcome. Several agents have been tested for prevention of ARDS progression. In a propensity-matched observational study, systemic corticosteroids did not reduce the incidence of ARDS (110). A single-center study showed that prehospital antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduced incidence of ARDS (111). Using propensity score matching, a multicenter study failed to show statistical significance with prehospital aspirin therapy; however, the multivariable effect size remained fairly consistent, and statistical significance was almost achieved (P = 0.07) (112). Similarly, propensity score matching analysis failed to show a decrease in ARDS with statin therapy, in contrast to prior published data (113, 114). Therapy with azithromycin was shown to decrease mortality and a 13.1% absolute risk reduction in incidence of ARDS (P = 0.064) in patients with pneumococcal pneumonia (115). In patients with lung injury, the receipt of a macrolide has been shown to decrease mortality and mechanical ventilation days, in contrast to patients receiving a fluoroquinolone or a cephalosporin (116). Given the pleiotropic effects of macrolides, prospective trials addressing the impact of these agents on ARDS prevention and treatment are warranted (117). Multiple clinical trials targeting various pathways, such as alveolar coagulation, inflammation, and alveolar fluid balance are currently in progress (

High minute ventilation and respiratory drive are common in early lung injury, as alveolar edema and respiratory system compliance worsen. With the induction of paralysis and control of the respiratory pattern, neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) can mitigate lung injury (theoretically) by removing dysynchrony and the associated overdistention and end-expiratory collapse associated with vigorous spontaneous respirations. Furthermore, a decrease in oxygen demand and subsequent cardiac output through an injured lung should reduce venous admixture and pulmonary edema (118). A small RCT also showed that a short duration of NMB reduced pulmonary and systemic inflammation (119). A multicenter database study of mechanically ventilated severe sepsis patients found that the receipt of NMBs was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality (120). In a multicenter RCT of patients with early (within 48 h), severe (PaO2:FIO2 [partial pressure of arterial oxygen:fraction of inspired oxygen] <150) ARDS, a 48-h infusion of cisatracurium was associated with decreased hospital mortality censored at 90 days (121). However, this benefit was restricted to the subgroup of patients with a PaO2:FIO2 of less than 120. These findings make recommending early NMB for patients at risk for ARDS difficult and perhaps restricted only to a very small cohort, such as lung injury prediction score of 8 or greater (≈35% chance of developing ARDS) with high ventilatory demands (34, 118).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Early treatment of infection

A delay in appropriate antimicrobial therapy increases the risk of death in patients with bacterial septic shock and increases progression rate to ARDS (17, 122). Globally, influenza is one of the most important causes of respiratory failure and ARDS, especially during seasonal outbreaks and pandemics (123). The majority of hospitalized patients with seasonal influenza present from the ED (124). Trials conducted primarily in healthy individuals in the outpatient setting have demonstrated that neuraminidase inhibitors can reduce illness duration for influenza patients treated within 48 h of illness onset (125). Data are limited with respect to patients with more severe influenza. In patients hospitalized with influenza, oseltamivir has been shown to reduce mortality and decrease lengths of stay (126–130). A minority of patients receive this therapy, however (124). In patients with pandemic influenza A (H1N1), the most common cause of death is pneumonia and ARDS (131). Observational data suggest that treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors reduces pneumonia, illness severity, and mortality (132–134). While antiviral therapy for prevention of ARDS has not been specifically studied, early treatment with antivirals has also been associated with a decrease in mechanical ventilation days in critically ill patients (135). It is recommended that early neuraminidase therapy be initiated as early as possible to reduce complications from influenza for any patient with confirmed or suspected influenza who is hospitalized, is critically ill, or is at the higher risk for complications (125).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Extracorporeal support

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and pumpless extracorporeal lung assist in respiratory failure is increasing in frequency. By allowing further limitation of tidal volume, end-inspiratory stretch, and regional overdistention, these strategies provide significant lung rest, potential for total strain prevention, and limitation of lung injury propagation. The current evidence to support ECMO in ARDS can be summarized as follows: Registry data point to a greater ECMO benefit when instituted early; prospective observational trials during the H1N1 influenza outbreak suggest that early ECMO referral to high-volume centers is feasible and associated with high survival rates; a multicenter RCT showed that referral to an ECMO-capable center was associated with a 16% absolute risk reduction for death or severe disability at 6 months (136–141). Whether the benefit lies in the ECMO itself or the referral to highly specialized centers is unclear.

The application of extracorporeal technology to prevent lung injury may seem unlikely when considering that benefit in ARDS seems to be restricted to the sickest cohort of patients. However, support for prevention could be extrapolated from the benefit when applied in early ARDS, as well as technological advances, which have increased ease of use and safety profile. New pumpless devices can effectively support gas exchange and facilitate very low tidal volume ventilation (142–144). This has allowed full support without the aid of an endotracheal tube in case reports (145, 146).

Looking forward, with evidence suggesting that normal lungs can be damaged by even low stretch ventilation, the early application of pumpless extracorporeal lung assist, in experienced, high-volume centers, could allow lung rest without the aid of a mechanical ventilator in a select cohort of patients at risk for ARDS (147). This expansion of extracorporeal support beyond life-threatening hypoxemia to life-threatening ventilator-associated lung injury remains to be tested (148).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Extending ICU-level supportive care to the ED and prehospital environment

Until better genotyping and phenotyping of the individual patients comprising critical care syndromes (e.g., sepsis and ARDS) occur, it seems unlikely that narrow mechanistic intervention trials will work (149, 150). Attempts at deindividualizing care, at the clinician level, have improved survival in sepsis (151). Similarly, the Checklist for Lung Injury Prevention attempts to standardize care for patients at risk for ARDS by incorporating evidence-based practices shown to benefit critically ill patients in general (152). While elucidating the contribution of individual elements (e.g., head-of-bed elevation and oral care with chlorhexidine) will likely be topics of academic debate, the efficacy to adverse effect profile, as well as common sense, dictates that standard ICU level of care should be extended to the ED and prehospital environment when feasible.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The prevalence and clinical trajectory of ARDS are modifiable. The physiology of lung injury, as well as previous trial failures, dictates that research and intervention should be extended to earlier times of patient presentation. While the ED has proven to be a highly relevant location for the treatment of time-sensitive emergencies (e.g., stroke, sepsis), this has yet to extend to mechanical ventilation and ARDS. Several knowledge gaps exist with respect to the long-term effects of ED interventions on ARDS progression and should be investigated further. The optimal intervention for ARDS prevention while likely be some combination of ventilatory and nonventilatory strategies, along with a multidisciplinary collaboration between emergency physicians, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory therapists.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors thank the many researchers who have made contributions to the field of mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and lung injury prevention. Without these prior works, this review, and the authors’ ongoing research, would not be possible.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Safar P: Critical care medicine: quo vadis. Crit Care Med 2 (1): 1–5, 1974.
2. McCaig LF, Burt CW: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1999 Emergency Department Summary. Adv Data 25; (320): 1–34, 2001.
3. Herring A, Ginde A, Fahimi J, Alter H, Maselli J, Espinola J, Sullivan A, Camargo J, Carlos A: Increasing critical care admissions from US emergency departments, 2001–2009. Crit Care Med 41 (5): 1197–1204, 2013.
4. Trzeciak S, Rivers E: Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health. Emerg Med J 20 (5): 402–405, 2003.
5. Fromm RE Jr, Gibbs LR, McCallum WG, Niziol C, Babcock JC, Gueler AC, Levine RL: Critical care in the emergency department: a time-based study. Crit Care Med 21 (7): 970–976, 1993.
6. Lambe S, Washington DL, Fink A, Herbst K, Liu H, Fosse JS, Asch SM: Trends in the use and capacity of California’s emergency departments, 1990–1999. Ann Emerg Med 39 (4): 389–396, 2002.
7. McConnell KJ, Richards CF, Daya M, Bernell SL, Weathers CC, Lowe RA: Effect of increased ICU capacity on emergency department length of stay and ambulance diversion. Ann Emerg Med 45 (5): 471, 2005.
8. Nelson M, Waldrop RD, Jones J, Randall Z: Critical care provided in an urban emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 16 (1): 56–59, 1998.
9. Varon J, Fromm RE, Levine RL: Emergency department procedures and length of stay for critically ill medical patients. Ann Emerg Med 23 (3): 546–549, 1994.
10. Nguyen HB, Rivers EP, Havstad S, Knoblich B, Ressler JA, Muzzin AM, Tomlanovich MC: Critical care in the emergency department a physiologic assessment and outcome evaluation. Acad Emerg Med 7 (12): 1354–1361, 2000.
11. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M: Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 345 (19): 1368–1377, 2001.
12. Fuller B, Mohr NM, Dettmer M, Cullison K, Kennedy S, Bavolek R, Rathert N, McCammon C: Mechanical ventilation and acute lung injury in emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: an observational study. Acad Emerg Med 20 (7): 659–669, 2013.
13. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 333 (1): 581–1587, 1995.
14. Fuller BM, Mohr NM, Drewry AM, Carpenter CR: Lower tidal volume at initiation of mechanical ventilation may reduce progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome—a systematic review. Crit Care 17 (1): R11, 2013.
15. Gajic O, Dara SI, Mendez JL, Adesanya AO, Festic E, Caples SM, Rana R, StSauver JL, Lymp JF, Afessa B: Ventilator-associated lung injury in patients without acute lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 32 (9): 1817–1824, 2004.
16. Gajic O, Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Hubmayr RD, Anzueto A: Ventilator settings as a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 31 (7): 922–926, 2005.
17. Iscimen R, Yilmaz M, Cartin-Ceba R, Hubmayr R, Afessa B, Gajic O, Farmer J: Risk factors for the development of acute lung injury in patients with septic shock: an observational cohort study. Crit Care 12 (Suppl 2): P487, 2008.
18. Jia X, Malhotra A, Saeed M, Mark RG, Talmor D: Risk factors for ARDS in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >48 h. Chest 133 (4): 853–861, 2008.
19. Kahn JM, Caldwell EC, Deem S, Newell DW, Heckbert SR, Rubenfeld GD: Acute lung injury in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Crit Care Med 34 (1): 196, 2006.
20. Sagarin MJ, Barton ED, Chng YM, Walls RM: Airway management by US and Canadian emergency medicine residents: a multicenter analysis of more than 6,000 endotracheal intubation attempts. Ann Emerg Med 46 (4): 328–336, 2005.
21. Hou P, Elie-Turenne MC, Mitani A, Barry JM, Kao EY, Cohen JE, Frendl G, Gajic O, Gentile NT: Towards prevention of acute lung injury: frequency and outcomes of emergency department patients at-risk - a multicenter cohort study [published online ahead of print]. Int J Emerg Med 5 (1), 2012.
22. Fuller B, Mohr N, Skrupky L, Mueller K, McCammon C: Emergency department vancomycin use: dosing practices and associated outcomes. J Emerg Med 44 (5): 910–918, 2013.
23. Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD: Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 353 (16): 1685–1693, 2005.
24. Rubenfeld GD, Herridge MS: Epidemiology and Outcomes of Acute Lung Injury. Chest 131 (2): 554–562, 2007.
25. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network: Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 342: 1301–1308, 2000.
26. Sud S, Friedrich JO, Taccone P, Polli F, Adhikari NK, Latini R, Pesenti A, Guérin C, Mancebo J, Curley MA: Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 36 (4): 585–599, 2010.
27. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, Mercier E, Badet M, Mercat A, Baudin O, et al.: Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 368: 2159–2168, 2013.
28. Goyal M, Housman D, Johnson NJ, Christie J, Mikkelsen ME, Gaieski DF: Prevalence of acute lung injury among medical patients in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 19: 1011–1018, 2012.
29. Ferguson ND, Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Fernández-Segoviano P, Aramburu JA, Nájera L, Stewart TE: Acute respiratory distress syndrome: underrecognition by clinicians and diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions. Crit Care Med 33 (10): 2228–2234, 2005.
30. Herasevich V, Yilmaz M, Khan H, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O: Validation of an electronic surveillance system for acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 35 (6): 1018–1023, 2009.
31. Fröhlich S, Murphy N, Doolan A, Ryan O, Boylan J: Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Underrecognition by clinicians. J Crit Care 28 (5): 663–668, 2013.
32. Needham DM, Colantuoni E, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dinglas VD, Sevransky JE, Himmelfarb CRD, Desai SV, Shanholtz C, Brower RG, Pronovost PJ: Lung protective mechanical ventilation and two year survival in patients with acute lung injury: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 344:e2124, 2012.
33. Determann RM, Royakkers A, Wolthuis EK, Vlaar AP, Choi G, Paulus F, Hofstra JJ, de Graaff MJ, Korevaar JC, Schultz MJ: Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 14 (1): R1, 2010.
34. Gajic O, Dabbagh O, Park PK, Adesanya A, Chang SY, Hou P, Anderson H III, Hoth JJ, Mikkelsen ME, Gentile NT: Early identification of patients at risk of acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 183 (4): 462–470, 2011.
35. Mikkelsen ME, Shah C, Meyer NJ, Gaieski DF, Lyon S, Miltiades AN, Goyal M, Fuchs BD, Bellamy SL, Christie JD: The epidemiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis. Shock 40 (5): 375–381, 2013.
36. Tenney S, Remmers J: Comparative quantitative morphology of the mammalian lung: diffusing area. Nature 197: 54–56, 1963.
37. Gattinoni L: Counterpoint: is low tidal volume mechanical ventilation preferred for all patients on ventilation? No. Chest 140: 11–13, 2011.
38. Hubmayr R: Point: is low tidal volume mechanical ventilation preferred for all patients on ventilation? Yes. CHEST 140: 9–11, 2011.
39. Mohr N, Fuller BM: Low tidal volume ventilation should be the routine ventilation strategy of choice for all emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 60 (2): 215–216, 2012.
40. Wright B, Slesinger TL: Low tidal volume should not routinely be used for emergency department patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Ann Emerg Med 60 (2): 216–217, 2012.
41. Blum J, Stentz M, Park P: Predictors of postoperative acute lung injury in a low-incidence surgical population. Anesthesiology A790, 2011.
42. Miranda DR, Struijs A, Koetsier P, van Thiel R, Schepp R, Hop W, Klein J, Lachmann B, Bogers AJJC, Gommers D: Open lung ventilation improves functional residual capacity after extubation in cardiac surgery. Crit Care Med 33 (10): 2253, 2005.
43. Schilling T, Kozian A, Huth C, Bühling F, Kretzschmar M, Welte T, Hachenberg T: The pulmonary immune effects of mechanical ventilation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Anesth Analg 101 (4): 957, 2005.
44. Zupancich E, Paparella D, Turani F, Munch C, Rossi A, Massaccesi S, Ranieri VM: Mechanical ventilation affects inflammatory mediators in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130 (2): 378–383, 2005.
45. Choi G, Wolthuis EK, Bresser P, Levi M, van der Poll T, Dzoljic M, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ: Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents alveolar coagulation in patients without lung injury. Anesthesiology 105 (4): 689, 2006.
46. Michelet P, D’Journo XB, Roch A, Doddoli C, Marin V, Papazian L, Decamps I, Bregeon F, Thomas P, Auffray JP: Protective ventilation influences systemic inflammation after esophagectomy: a randomized controlled study. Anesthesiology 105 (5): 911, 2006.
47. Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, Marret E, Beaussier M, Gutton C, Lefrant JY: A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 369 (5): 428–437, 2013.
48. Mascia L, Zavala E, Bosma K, Pasero D, Decaroli D, Andrews P, Isnardi D, Davi A, Arguis MJ, Berardino M: High tidal volume is associated with the development of acute lung injury after severe brain injury: an international observational study. Crit Care Med 35 (8): 1815, 2007.
49. Yilmaz M, Keegan MT, Iscimen R, Afessa B, Buck CF, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O: Toward the prevention of acute lung injury: protocol-guided limitation of large tidal volume ventilation and inappropriate transfusion. Crit Care Med 35 (7): 1660, 2007.
50. Pasero D, Davi A, Guerriero F, Rana N, Merigo G, Mastromauro I, Viberti S, Mascia L, Rinaldi M, Ranieri M: High tidal volume as an independent risk factor for acute lung injury after cardiac surgery. Intensive Care Med 34 (Suppl 1): 0398, 2008.
51. Montori VM, Devereaux P, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM: Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 294 (17): 2203, 2005.
52. Neto AS, Cardoso SO, Manetta JA, Pereira VGM, Espósito DC, Pasqualucci MdOP, Damasceno MCT, Schultz MJ: Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome. A meta-analysis. Protective ventilation and lower tidal volumes. JAMA 308 (16): 1651–1659, 2012.
53. Amato MBP, Barbas CSV, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R: Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 338 (6): 347–354, 1998.
54. Villar J, Kacmarek RM, Pérez-Méndez L, Aguirre-Jaime A: A high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume ventilatory strategy improves outcome in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 34 (5): 1311–1318, 2006.
55. Kilickaya O, Gajic O: Initial ventilator settings for critically ill patients. Crit Care 17 (123), 2013.
56. Cressoni M, Caironi P, Polli F, Carlesso E, Chiumello D, Cadringher P, Quintel M, Ranieri VM, Bugedo G, Gattinoni L: Anatomical and functional intrapulmonary shunt in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 36 (3): 669–675, 2008.
57. Webb H: Experimental pulmonary edema due to intermittent positive pressure ventilation with high inflation pressures. Protection by positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 110 (5): 556–565, 1974.
58. Muscedere J, Mullen J, Gan K, Slutsky A: Tidal ventilation at low airway pressures can augment lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149 (5): 1327–1334, 1994.
59. Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, Slutsky AS, Pullenayegum E, Zhou Q, Cook D: Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 303 (9): 865–873, 2010.
60. Brower R, Lanken P, MacIntyre N, Matthay M, Morris A, Ancukiewicz M, Schoenfeld D, Thompson B: Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 351 (4): 327, 2004.
61. Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Slutsky AS, Arabi YM, Cooper DJ, Davies AR, Hand LE, Zhou Q, Thabane L: Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 299 (6): 637–645, 2008.
62. Mercat A, Richard JCM, Vielle B, Jaber S, Osman D, Diehl JL, Lefrant JY, Prat G, Richecoeur J, Nieszkowska A: Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 299 (6): 646–655, 2008.
63. Miranda DR, Gommers D, Struijs A, Dekker R, Mekel J, Feelders R, Lachmann B, Bogers AJ: Ventilation according to the open lung concept attenuates pulmonary inflammatory response in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 28 (6): 889–895, 2005.
64. Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, O’Donnell CR, Ritz R, Lisbon A, Novack V, Loring SH: Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 359 (20): 2095, 2008.
65. Gong MN, Bajwa EK, Thompson BT, Christiani DC: Body mass index is associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Thorax 65 (1): 44–50, 2010.
66. Albert RK: The role of ventilation-induced surfactant dysfunction and atelectasis in causing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185 (7): 702–708, 2012.
67. Tschumperlin D, Oswari J, Margulies SS: Deformation-induced injury of alveolar epithelial cells: effect of frequency, duration, and amplitude. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162 (2): 357–362, 2000.
68. Protti A, Andreis D, Monti M, Santini A, Sparacino CC, Langer T, Votta E, Gatti S, Lombardi L, Leopardi O, et al.: Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation: any difference between statics and dynamics? Crit Care Med 41: 1046–1055, 2013.
69. Conrad SA, Zhang S, Arnold TC, Scott LK, Carden DL: Protective effects of low respiratory frequency in experimental ventilator-associated lung injury. Crit Care Med 33 (4): 835–840, 2005.
70. Roy S, Habashi N, Sadowitz B, Andrews P, Ge L, Wang G, Roy P, Ghosh A, Kuhn M, Satalin J, et al.: Early airway pressure release ventilation prevents ARDS- a novel preventive approach to lung injury. Shock 39 (1): 28–38, 2013.
71. Roy S, Emr B, Sadowitz B, Gatto LA, Ghosh A, Satalin JM, Snyder KP, Ge L, Wang G, Marx W, et al.: Preemptive application of airway pressure release ventilation prevents development of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a rat traumatic hemorrhagic shock model. Shock 40 (3): 210–216, 2013.
72. Shiber J, O’Toole R, Habashi N: APRV is associated with a low rate of ARDS in high-risk trauma patients. Crit Care Med 37 (12): A185, 2009.
73. Collins SP, Mielniczuk LM, Whittingham HA, Boseley ME, Schramm DR, Storrow AB: The use of noninvasive ventilation in emergency department patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med 48 (3): 260–269, 2006.
74. Lightowler JV, Wedzicha JA, Elliott MW, Ram FS: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation to treat respiratory failure resulting from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 326 (7382): 185, 2003.
75. Squadrone V, Massaia M, Bruno B, Marmont F, Falda M, Bagna C, Bertone S, Filippini C, Slutsky AS, Vitolo U: Early CPAP prevents evolution of acute lung injury in patients with hematologic malignancy. Intensive Care Med 36 (10): 1666–1674, 2010.
76. Hilbert G, Gruson D, Vargas F, Valentino R, Gbikpi-Benissan G, Dupon M, Reiffers J, Cardinaud JP: Noninvasive ventilation in immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 344 (7): 481–487, 2001.
77. Agarwal R, Aggarwal AN, Gupta D: Role of noninvasive ventilation in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome: a proportion meta-analysis. Respir Care 55 (12): 1653–1660, 2010.
78. Delclaux C, L’Her E, Alberti C, Mancebo J, Abroug F, Conti G, Guérin C, Schortgen F, Lefort Y, Antonelli M: Treatment of acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory insufficiency with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by a face mask. JAMA 284 (18): 2352–2360, 2000.
79. The ARDS Definition Task Force. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307 (23): 2526–2533, 2012.
80. Ferguson ND, Meade MO, Hallett DC, Stewart TE: High values of the pulmonary artery wedge pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 28 (8): 1073–1077, 2002.
81. Alsous F, Khamiees M, DeGirolamo A, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Manthous CA: Negative fluid balance predicts survival in patients with septic shock. A retrospective pilot study. Chest J 117 (6): 1749–1754, 2000.
82. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada Ta, Walley KR, Russell JA: Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 39 (2): 259–265, 2011.
83. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, Gerlach H, Moreno R, Carlet J, Le Gall JR, Payen D: Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med 34 (2): 344–353, 2006.
84. Upadya A, Tilluckdharry L, Muralidharan V, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Manthous CA: Fluid balance and weaning outcomes. Intensive Care Med 31 (12): 1643–1647, 2005.
85. Brandstrup B, Tønnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, Hjortsø E, Ørding H, Lindorff-Larsen K, Rasmussen MS, Lanng C, Wallin L: Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg 238 (5): 641, 2003.
86. Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G, Weissman C, Einav S, Matot I: Effect of intraoperative fluid management on outcome after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology 103 (1): 25–32, 2005.
87. Bouchard J, Mehta RL: Fluid accumulation and acute kidney injury: consequence or cause. Curr Opin Crit Care 15 (6): 509–513, 2009.
88. Payen D, de Pont A, Sakr Y, Spies C, Reinhart K, Vincent J: A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure. Crit Care 12 (3): R74, 2008.
89. Rivers EP, Kruse JA, Jacobsen G, Shah K, Loomba M, Otero R, Childs EW: The influence of early hemodynamic optimization on biomarker patterns of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 35 (9): 2016–2024, 2007.
90. Murphy CV, Schramm GE, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, Gajic O, Afessa B, Micek ST, Kollef MH: The importance of fluid management in acute lung injury secondary to septic shock. Chest J 136 (1): 102–109, 2009.
91. Mitchell JP, Schuller D, Calandrino FS, Schuster DP: Improved outcome based on fluid management in critically III patients requiring pulmonary artery catheterization. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 145 (5): 990–998, 1992.
92. Wiedemann H, Wheeler A, Bernard G, Thompson B, Hayden D, DeBoisblanc B, Connors A Jr, Hite R, Harabin A: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 354 (24): 2564–2575, 2006.
93. Licker M, de Perrot M, Spiliopoulos A, Robert J, Diaper J, Chevalley C, Tschopp JM: Risk factors for acute lung injury after thoracic surgery for lung cancer. Anesth Analg 97 (6): 1558, 2003.
94. Licker M, Diaper J, Villiger Y, Spiliopoulos A, Licker V, Robert J, Tschopp JM: Impact of intraoperative lung-protective interventions in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. Crit Care 13 (2): R41, 2009.
95. Hughes CG, Weavind L, Banerjee A, Mercaldo ND, Schildcrout JS, Pandharipande PP: Intraoperative risk factors for acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg 111 (2): 464–467, 2010.
96. Fernández-Pérez ER, Keegan M, Brown DR, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O: Intraoperative tidal volume as a risk factor for respiratory failure after pneumonectomy. Anesthesiology 105 (1): 14–18, 2006.
97. Michard F, Teboul JL: Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients. A critical analysis of the evidence. Chest J 121 (6): 2000–2008, 2002.
98. Wheeler AP, Bernard GR: Acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a clinical review. Lancet 369 (9572): 1553–1564, 2007.
99. Gajic O, Rana R, Winters JL, Yilmaz M, Mendez JL, Rickman OB, O’Byrne MM, Evenson LK, Malinchoc M, DeGoey SR: Transfusion-related acute lung injury in the critically ill prospective nested case-control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 176 (9): 886–891, 2007.
100. Vlaar AP, Binnekade JM, Prins D, van Stein D, Hofstra JJ, Schultz MJ, Juffermans NP: Risk factors and outcome of transfusion-related acute lung injury in the critically ill: a nested case-control study. Crit Care Med 38 (3): 771–778, 2010.
101. Hébert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G, Tweeddale M, Schweitzer I, Yetisir E: A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. N Engl J Med 340 (6): 409–417, 1999.
102. Gong MN, Thompson BT, Williams P, Pothier L, Boyce PD, Christiani DC: Clinical predictors of and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: potential role of red cell transfusion. Crit Care Med 33 (6): 1191–1198, 2005.
103. Khan H, Belsher J, Yilmaz M, Afessa B, Winters JL, Moore SB, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O: Fresh-frozen plasma and platelet transfusions are associated with development of acute lung injury in critically ill medical patients. Chest J 131 (5): 1308–1314, 2007.
104. Zilberberg M, Carter C, Lefebvre P, Raut M, Vekeman F, Duh M, Shorr A: Red blood cell transfusions and the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome among the critically ill: a cohort study. Crit Care 11 (3): R63, 2007.
105. Starkey K, Keene D, Morrison JJ, Doughty H, Midwinter MJ, Woolley T, Jansen JO: Impact of high ratios of plasma–to–red cell concentrate on the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome in UK Transfused Combat Casualties. Shock 40 (1): 15–20, 2013.
106. Marik PE, Corwin HL: Acute lung injury following blood transfusion: expanding the definition. Crit Care Med 36 (11): 3080–3084, 2008.
107. Toy P, Gajic O, Bacchetti P, Looney MR, Gropper MA, Hubmayr R, Lowell CA, Norris PJ, Murphy EL, Weiskopf RB: Transfusion-related acute lung injury: incidence and risk factors. Blood 119 (7): 1757–1767, 2012.
108. Rivers EP, Coba V, Whitmill M: Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: a contemporary review of the literature. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 21 (2): 128–140, 2008.
109. Fuller BM, Gajera M, Schorr C, Gerber D, Dellinger RP, Parrillo J, Zanotti S: Transfusion of packed red blood cells is not associated with improved central venous oxygen saturation or organ function in patients with septic shock. J Emerg Med 43 (4): 593–598, 2012.
110. Karnatovskaia LV, Lee AS, Gajic O, Festic E: The influence of prehospital systemic corticosteroid use on development of acute respiratory distress syndrome and hospital outcomes. Crit Care Med 41 (7): 1679–1685, 2013.
111. Erlich JM, Talmor DS, Cartin-Ceba R, Gajic O, Kor DJ: Prehospitalization antiplatelet therapy is associated with a reduced incidence of acute lung injury. A population-based cohort study. Chest J 139 (2): 289–295, 2011.
112. Kor DJ, Erlich J, Gong MN, Malinchoc M, Carter RE, Gajic O, Talmor D: Association of pre-hospitalization aspirin therapy and acute lung injury: results of a multicenter international observational study of at-risk patients. Crit Care Med 39 (11): 2393, 2011.
113. Bajwa EK, Malhotra CK, Thompson BT, Christiani DC, Gong MN: Statin therapy as prevention against development of acute respiratory distress syndrome: an observational study. Crit Care Med 40 (5): 1470, 2012.
114. O’Neal HR Jr, Koyama T, Koehler EA, Siew E, Curtis BR, Fremont RD, May AK, Bernard GR, Ware LB: Prehospital statin and aspirin use and the prevalence of severe sepsis and ALI/ARDS. Crit Care Med 39 (6): 1343, 2011.
115. Shorr AF, Zilberberg MD, Kan J, Hoffman J, Micek ST, Kollef MH: Azithromycin and survival in Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia: a retrospective study. BMJ Open 3 (6), pii: e002898, 2013.
116. Walkey AJ, Wiener RS: Macrolide antibiotics and survival in patients with acute lung injury. Chest J 141 (5): 1153–1159, 2012.
117. Noto MJ, Wheeler AP: Macrolides for acute lung injury. Chest J 141 (5): 1131–1132, 2012.
118. Marini JJ: Early phase of lung-protective ventilation: a place for paralytics?. Crit Care Med 34 (11): 2851–2853, 2006.
119. Forel JM, Roch A, Marin V, Michelet P, Demory D, Blache JL, Perrin G, Gainnier M, Bongrand P, Papazian L: Neuromuscular blocking agents decrease inflammatory response in patients presenting with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 34 (11): 2749–2757, 2006.
120. Steingrub JS, Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Nathanson BH, Raghunathan K, Lindenauer PK: Treatment with neuromuscular blocking agents and the risk of in-hospital mortality among mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis. Crit Care Med 42: 90–96, 2013.
121. Papazian L, Forel J, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, Jaber S, Arnal J, Perez D, Seghboyan J: ACURASYS Study Investigators. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 363 (12): 1107–1116, 2010.
122. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L: Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 34 (6): 1589–1596, 2006.
123. Lambert LC, Fauci AS: Influenza vaccines for the future. N Engl J Med 363 (21): 2036–2044, 2010.
124. McGeer A, Green KA, Plevneshi A, Shigayeva A, Siddiqi N, Raboud J, Low DE: Antiviral therapy and outcomes of influenza requiring hospitalization in Ontario, Canada. Clin Infect Dis 45 (12): 1568–1575, 2007.
125. Fiore M, Fry A, Shay D, Gubareva L, Bresee JS, Uyeki TMCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Antiviral agents for the treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza — recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 60 (1): 1–24, 2011.
126. Lee N, Chan P, Choi KW, Lui G, Wong B, Cockram CS, Hui D, Lai R, Tang JW, Sung J: Factors associated with early hospital discharge of adult influenza patients. Antivir Ther 12 (4): 501, 2007.
127. Johnston SL, Ferrero F, Garcia ML, Dutkowski R: Oral oseltamivir improves pulmonary function and reduces exacerbation frequency for influenza-infected children with asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J 24 (3): 225–232, 2005.
128. Hanshaoworakul W, Simmerman JM, Narueponjirakul U, Sanasuttipun W, Shinde V, Kaewchana S, Areechokechai D, Levy J, Ungchusak K: Severe human influenza infections in Thailand: oseltamivir treatment and risk factors for fatal outcome. PloS One 4 (6): e6051, 2009.
129. Lee N, Choi K, Chan P, Hui D, Lui G, Wong B, Wong R, Sin W, Hui W, Ngai K: Outcomes of adults hospitalised with severe influenza. Thorax 65 (6): 510–515, 2010.
130. Chemaly RF, Torres HA, Aguilera EA, Mattiuzzi G, Cabanillas M, Kantarjian H, Gonzalez V, Safdar A, Raad II: Neuraminidase inhibitors improve outcome of patients with leukemia and influenza: an observational study. Clin Infect Dis 44 (7): 964–967, 2007.
131. Louie JK, Acosta M, Winter K, Jean C, Gavali S, Schechter R, Vugia D, Harriman K, Matyas B, Glaser CA: Factors associated with death or hospitalization due to pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) infection in California. JAMA 302 (17): 1896–1902, 2009.
132. Yu H, Liao Q, Yuan Y, Zhou L, Xiang N, Huai Y, Guo X, Zheng Y, van Doorn HR, Farrar J: Effectiveness of oseltamivir on disease progression and viral RNA shedding in patients with mild pandemic 2009 influenza A H1N1: opportunistic retrospective study of medical charts in China. BMJ 341:c4779, 2010.
133. Farias JA, Fernández A, Monteverde E, Vidal N, Arias P, Montes MJ, Rodríguez G, Allasia M, Ratto ME, Jaén R: Critically ill infants and children with influenza A (H1N1) in pediatric intensive care units in Argentina. Intensive Care Med 36 (6): 1015–1022, 2010.
134. Domínguez-Cherit G, Lapinsky SE, Macias AE, Pinto R, Espinosa-Perez L, de la Torre A, Poblano-Morales M, Baltazar-Torres JA, Bautista E, Martinez A: Critically ill patients with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) in Mexico. JAMA 302 (17): 1880–1887, 2009.
135. Rodríguez A, Díaz E, Martín-Loeches I, Sandiumenge A, Canadell L, Díaz JJ, Figueira JC, Marques A, Álvarez-Lerma F, Vallés J: Impact of early oseltamivir treatment on outcome in critically ill patients with 2009 pandemic influenza A. J Antimicrob Chemother 66 (5): 1140–1149, 2011.
136. Brogan TV, Thiagarajan RR, Rycus PT, Bartlett RH, Bratton SL: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults with severe respiratory failure: a multi-center database. Intensive Care Med 35 (12): 2105–2114, 2009.
137. Noah MA, Peek GJ, Finney SJ, Griffiths MJ, Harrison DA, Grieve R, Sadique MZ, Sekhon JS, McAuley DF, Firmin RK: Referral to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center and mortality among patients with severe 2009 influenza A (H1N1). JAMA 306 (15): 1659–1668, 2011.
138. Roch A, Lepaul-Ercole R, Grisoli D, Bessereau J, Brissy O, Castanier M, Dizier S, Forel JM, Guervilly C, Gariboldi V: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe influenza A (H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational comparative study. Intensive Care Med 36 (11): 1899–1905, 2010.
139. Davies A, Jones D, Bailey M, Beca J, Bellomo R, Blackwell N, Forrest P, Gattas D, Granger E, Herkes R: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A (H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 302 (17): 1888–1895, 2009.
140. Patroniti N, Zangrillo A, Pappalardo F, Peris A, Cianchi G, Braschi A, Iotti GA, Arcadipane A, Panarello G, Ranieri VM: The Italian ECMO network experience during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic: preparation for severe respiratory emergency outbreaks. Intensive Care Med 37 (9): 1447–1457, 2011.
141. Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, Hibbert CL, Truesdale A, Clemens F, Cooper N: Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 374 (9698): 1351–1363, 2009.
142. Terragni PP, del Sorbo L, Mascia L, Urbino R, Martin EL, Birocco A, Faggiano C, Quintel M, Gattinoni L, Ranieri VM: Tidal volume lower than 6 mL/kg enhances lung protection: role of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Anesthesiology 111 (4): 826–835, 2009.
143. Kopp R, Bensberg, Wardeh M, Rossaint R, Kuhlen R, Henzler D: Pumpless arterio-venous extracorporeal lung assist compared with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during experimental lung injury. Br J Anaesth 108 (5): 745–752, 2012.
144. Zimmermann M, Bein T, Arlt M, Philipp A, Rupprecht L, Mueller T, Lubnow M, Graf BM, Schlitt HJ: Pumpless extracorporeal interventional lung assist in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective pilot study. Crit Care 13 (1): R10, 2009.
145. Bein T, Wittmann S, Philipp A, Nerlich M, Kuehnel T, Schlitt HJ: Successful extubation of an “unweanable” patient with severe ankylosing spondylitis (Bechterew’s disease) using a pumpless extracorporeal lung assist. Intensive Care Med 34 (12): 2313–2314, 2008.
146. Taylor K, Holtby H: Emergency interventional lung assist for pulmonary hypertension. Anesth Analg 109 (2): 382–385, 2009.
147. Wolthuis EK, Vlaar A, Choi G, Roelofs J, Juffermans NP, Schultz MJ: Mechanical ventilation using non-injurious ventilation settings causes lung injury in the absence of pre-existing lung injury in healthy mice. Crit Care 13 (1): R1, 2009.
148. Marini JJ: Mechanical ventilation: past lessons and the near future. Crit Care 17 (Suppl 1): S1, 2013.
149. Mondrinos MJ, Kennedy PA, Lyons M, Deutschman CS, Kilpatrick LE: Protein kinase C and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Shock 39 (6): 467–479, 2013.
150. Cardinal-Fernández P, Ferruelo A, El-Assar M, Santiago C, Gómez-Gallego F, Martín-Pellicer A, Frutos-Vivar F, Peñuelas O, Nin N, Esteban A: Genetic predisposition to acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with severe sepsis. Shock 39 (3): 255–260, 2013.
151. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R: Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med 39 (2): 165–228, 2013.
152. Kor DJ, Talmor DS, Banner-Goodspeed VM, Carter RE, Hinds R, Park PK, Gajic O, Gong MN: Lung Injury Prevention with Aspirin (LIPS-A): a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial in medical patients at high risk of acute lung injury. BMJ 2 (5), 2012. pii: e001606.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome; emergency department; prevention

© 2014 by the Shock Society