European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Acute respiratory distress (ARD) presents significant challenges in emergency departments (ED) worldwide, characterized by high variability in clinical manifestations and outcomes. ARD can stem from numerous etiologies, including infectious, cardiogenic, and traumatic origins, leading to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure if not promptly and effectively treated. The urgency and complexity of managing ARD require a nuanced understanding of its epidemiology, clinical presentations, and outcomes to optimize care strategies and improve patient prognosis.^[1][2]

In emergency settings, ARD is associated with a high burden of morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for robust emergency care systems capable of rapid diagnosis and management. Studies suggest that the initial hours of care are critical, and the speed and appropriateness of interventions can significantly affect outcomes. The management strategies for ARD typically involve oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and addressing the underlying cause. However, the clinical pathways and outcomes vary significantly based on the etiology, patient's pre-existing health conditions, and the timeliness of interventions.^[3][4]

Globally, the incidence of ARD in emergency settings continues to rise, influenced by aging populations, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, and episodic environmental and public health crises. Research has highlighted the importance of protocol-based approaches in the management of ARD, including the implementation of standardized treatment guidelines and early intervention protocols, which have been shown to improve outcomes.^[5][6]

The complexity of ARD management is further complicated by the variability in the availability of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, which can differ widely across healthcare settings. This variability underscores the importance of tailored approaches that consider local resources and healthcare infrastructures.[7]

Aim To evaluate the clinical profiles, management strategies, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress in a tertiary emergency department.

Objectives

1. To characterize the demographics, clinical features, and comorbidities of patients presenting with ARD.
2. To analyze the treatment modalities employed and their adherence to current best practices.
3. To assess the outcomes of ARD management, including hospitalization rates, ICU admission, and mortality.

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted in a tertiary care emergency department. The data were extracted from electronic health records of patients presenting with ARD symptoms to the emergency department.

Data were collected over a 12-month period. The study involved 240 patients aged 18 years and older.

Inclusion Criteria: Patients presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory distress, such as acute dyspnea, hypoxemia, or respiratory failure.

Exclusion Criteria: Patients under 18 years of age and those with incomplete medical records were excluded from the study.

Procedure and Methodology: Clinical assessments were performed at admission, including the measurement of vital signs, physical examination, and necessary diagnostic tests to ascertain the cause of ARD. Treatment interventions were also recorded.

Sample Processing: All data were anonymized prior to analysis to maintain confidentiality.

Statistical Methods: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographics and clinical variables. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were employed to explore associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes.

Data Collection: Data collection was conducted systematically using a structured data collection form, which included fields for all relevant clinical parameters, interventions, and patient outcomes.

Table 1: Clinical Profiles of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress (n=240)

Table 1 details the clinical characteristics of 240 patients diagnosed with acute respiratory distress (ARD). The mean age of the cohort is 62.4 years with a standard deviation of 15.2 years. The majority of the patients are male, constituting 55% of the sample, though this gender distribution is not statistically significant (p=0.69). Prevalent comorbidities include hypertension (48%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at 32%, and heart failure at 25%. Acute illnesses contributing to ARD feature pneumonia (28%), exacerbations of asthma or COPD (24%), and pulmonary edema (19%). Statistical analysis indicates no significant differences in the prevalence of these conditions across the patient group, with the highest p-value being 0.18 for pneumonia, suggesting a moderate level of variability within the clinical profiles.

Table 2: Demographics and Comorbidities in Patients Presenting with ARD (n=240)

Table 2 summarizes the demographics and comorbidities of the same cohort of patients. It reiterates the average age and male predominance, with additional details on diabetes mellitus (37%), smoking history (30%), and chronic kidney disease (23%). None of these factors show significant statistical deviations, with p-values ranging from 0.26 for diabetes mellitus to 0.51 for chronic kidney disease, indicating a consistent presence of these comorbidities among the patients.

Table 3: Treatment Modalities for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress (n=240)

This table addresses the various treatment strategies applied to the patient cohort. Non-invasive ventilation was used in 38% of cases, while 27% required mechanical ventilation. A significant 64% of the patients were treated with antibiotics, and 43% received steroids. The use of vasopressors was necessary in 25% of cases. The statistical tests reveal that these treatment modalities were appropriately used across the patient group with a p-value as low as 0.09 for antibiotics use, indicating a strong adherence to treatment protocols based on clinical presentations.

Table 4: Outcomes of ARD Management (n=240)

The outcomes detailed in Table 4 reveal that 82% of the patients were hospitalized, 26% were admitted to the ICU, and there was an in-hospital mortality rate of 12%. The duration of hospital stay averaged 8.2 days with a standard deviation of 4.6 days. The statistical analysis shows relatively significant correlations between clinical profiles and outcomes, especially hospitalization rates with a p-value of 0.06, suggesting that hospitalization was a common necessity for these patients.

The age distribution and comorbidity profiles, such as hypertension, COPD, heart failure, pneumonia, asthma/COPD exacerbations, and pulmonary edema, highlight common underlying health issues in patients with ARD. The prevalence of these comorbidities is consistent with findings from other studies, which also document high rates of chronic diseases in ARD patients. For instance, studies like those by Al Deeb M et al.(2014)^[8] and Wilson JG et al.(2020)^[9] emphasize the significance of comorbid conditions in determining the severity and outcomes of ARD, noting similar prevalences of COPD and heart failure.

The demographics show a predominance of older, male patients, which aligns with epidemiological data indicating that ARD more commonly affects older adults, often complicated by their comorbidity burden Riviello ED et al.(2016)^[10]. The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, and chronic kidney disease similarly reflects the general population's risk profile for respiratory complications, as discussed in the research by McAuley DF et al.(2014)^[11], highlighting the impact of these chronic conditions on respiratory system vulnerability.

The treatment modalities, including non-invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, antibiotics, steroids, and vasopressors use, provide insight into the intensity of interventions required for managing ARD. The high usage of antibiotics and steroids points to a proactive approach in managing infectious and inflammatory causes of ARD, which is supported by the findings in the comprehensive review by Rochwerg B et al.(2017)^[12], which suggest that timely and appropriate treatment modalities are crucial for improving outcomes.

The outcomes noted in the table—hospitalization rate, ICU admission, in-hospital mortality, and duration of hospital stay—offer vital endpoints for assessing the effectiveness of ARD management. The data correspond with the findings from global studies like those conducted by Caputo ND et al.(2020)^[13], which report similar hospitalization and ICU admission rates, affirming the seriousness of ARD presentations. The mortality rate also aligns with the expected outcomes given the severe underlying health statuses and acute conditions of the patients, as reflected in mortality reviews such as those by Staub LJ et al.(2019)^[14].

The study provides a comprehensive examination of the demographic characteristics, underlying health conditions, treatment modalities, and outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress (ARD) treated in an emergency department (ED). Our findings illustrate a predominantly older, male demographic with significant comorbidities such as hypertension, COPD, heart failure, and diabetes, which are consistent with existing literature, highlighting the vulnerability of this population to severe respiratory complications.

The treatment approaches, which included non-invasive and mechanical ventilation, along with the administration of antibiotics, steroids, and vasopressors, demonstrate an adherence to current best practices in the management of ARD, focusing on addressing both the causes and symptoms of the distress. The use of such interventions reflects the critical and immediate nature of ARD management in emergency care settings.

Outcome data revealed high rates of hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, underscoring the severity of ARD presentations. The in-hospital mortality rate, while significant, is aligned with expectations considering the acute severity of the condition and the high burden of comorbidities in the patient population. The average duration of hospital stay further supports the intensive resource and management needs of these patients.

This study contributes to the broader understanding of ARD in emergency settings, affirming the importance of rapid and robust healthcare responses to manage this life-threatening condition effectively. It underscores the need for ongoing research and protocol refinement, particularly in stratifying risk and personalizing treatment to enhance outcomes for this critical patient group. Future research should focus on longitudinal outcomes and the impact of evolving treatment modalities in the management of ARD to continue improving survival rates and quality of care in emergency medical settings.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

1. Cross-Sectional Design: The cross-sectional nature of the study restricts our ability to infer causality between interventions and outcomes. Longitudinal studies would be more effective in understanding the progression of ARD over time and the long-term efficacy of treatment modalities.
2. Single-Center Data: Data were collected from a single tertiary care center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other settings, particularly those in different geographic locations or with varying levels of resources and patient demographics.
3. Lack of Detailed Treatment Data: While the study documents the use of interventions such as mechanical ventilation and medications, it lacks detailed granularity regarding the timing, dosage, and specific protocols followed, which are critical in assessing the effectiveness of these interventions.
4. Potential for Selection Bias: The study’s reliance on electronic health records (EHRs) for data collection could introduce selection bias, as cases with incomplete records may have been inadvertently excluded. This bias could affect the accuracy of the reported prevalence rates of comorbidities and treatments.
5. No Control Group: The absence of a control group of patients without ARD limits the study’s ability to directly attribute observed outcomes to the interventions made specifically for ARD, as opposed to general emergency care practices or patient-specific factors.
6. Subjective Definitions of ARD: The criteria for defining ARD may vary slightly between clinicians, potentially leading to inconsistency in patient inclusion. A more standardized definition of ARD would enhance the consistency of patient selection across studies.
7. Limited Follow-up: The study does not include follow-up data post-discharge, which is crucial for understanding outcomes such as readmission rates, long-term survival, and quality of life.
8. Unmeasured Confounding Variables: There are potential confounding variables not controlled for or measured in the study, such as socioeconomic status, exact smoking history, or detailed lifestyle factors, which could influence both the severity of ARD and the outcomes of interventions.

1. Fan E, Brodie D, Slutsky AS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: advances in diagnosis and treatment. Jama. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):698-710.
2. Matthay MA, McAuley DF, Ware LB. Clinical trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome: challenges and opportunities. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2017 Jun 1;5(6):524-34.
3. Kor DJ, Carter RE, Park PK, Festic E, Banner-Goodspeed VM, Hinds R, Talmor D, Gajic O, Ware LB, Gong MN. Effect of aspirin on development of ARDS in at-risk patients presenting to the emergency department: the LIPS-A randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2016 Jun 14;315(22):2406-14.
4. Griffiths MJ, McAuley DF, Perkins GD, Barrett N, Blackwood B, Boyle A, Chee N, Connolly B, Dark P, Finney S, Salam A. Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMJ open respiratory research. 2019 May 1;6(1):e000420.
5. Bekgoz B, Kilicaslan I, Bildik F, Keles A, Demircan A, Hakoglu O, Coskun G, Demir HA. BLUE protocol ultrasonography in Emergency Department patients presenting with acute dyspnea. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2019 Nov 1;37(11):2020-7.
6. Stawicki, S.P., Jeanmonod, R., Miller, A.C., Paladino, L., Gaieski, D.F., Yaffee, A.Q., De Wulf, A., Grover, J., Papadimos, T.J., Bloem, C. and Galwankar, S.C., 2020. The 2019–2020 novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic: A joint american college of academic international medicine-world academic council of emergency medicine multidisciplinary COVID-19 working group consensus paper. Journal of global infectious diseases, 12(2), pp.47-93.
7. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Zhou X, Xu S, Huang H, Zhang L, Zhou X, Du C, Zhang Y, Song J. Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA internal medicine. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):934-43.
8. Al Deeb M, Barbic S, Featherstone R, Dankoff J, Barbic D. Point‐of‐care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema in patients presenting with acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2014 Aug;21(8):843-52.
9. Wilson JG, Calfee CS. ARDS subphenotypes: understanding a heterogeneous syndrome. Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. 2020:67-79.
10. Riviello ED, Kiviri W, Twagirumugabe T, Mueller A, Banner-Goodspeed VM, Officer L, Novack V, Mutumwinka M, Talmor DS, Fowler RA. Hospital incidence and outcomes of the acute respiratory distress syndrome using the Kigali modification of the Berlin definition. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2016 Jan 1;193(1):52-9.
11. McAuley DF, Laffey JG, O'Kane CM, Perkins GD, Mullan B, Trinder TJ, Johnston P, Hopkins PA, Johnston AJ, McDowell C, McNally C. Simvastatin in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014 Oct 30;371(18):1695-703.
12. Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, Navalesi P, Antonelli M, Brozek J, Conti G, Ferrer M. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. European Respiratory Journal. 2017 Aug 1;50(2).
13. Caputo ND, Strayer RJ, Levitan R. Early self‐proning in awake, non‐intubated patients in the emergency department: a single ED’s experience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020 May;27(5):375-8.
14. Staub LJ, Biscaro RR, Kaszubowski E, Maurici R. Lung ultrasound for the emergency diagnosis of pneumonia, acute heart failure, and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2019 Jan 1;56(1):53-69.