ARDS: hidden perils of an overburdened diagnosis

• Published in: Critical care (London, England) Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 392 - 5
• Main Author: Tobin, Martin J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 17.12.2022; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Anesthesia; Care and treatment; Caregivers; Clinical trials; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Critical care; Diagnosis; Dyspnea; Humans; Intubation; Medical diagnosis; Medicine; Methods; Mortality; Narcotics; Pandemics; Patients; Physiology; Practice; Prescription writing; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome - diagnosis; Task forces; Tidal Volume; Ventilators; United States
• ISSN: 1364-8535; 1466-609X; 1466-609X; 1364-8535; 1366-609X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04271-y

A diagnosis of ARDS serves as a pretext for several perilous clinical practices. Clinical trials demonstrated that tidal volume 12 ml/kg increases patient mortality, but 6 ml/kg has not proven superior to 11 ml/kg or anything in between. Present guidelines recommend 4 ml/kg, which foments severe air hunger, leading to prescription of hazardous (yet ineffective) sedatives, narcotics and paralytic agents. Inappropriate lowering of tidal volume also fosters double triggering, which promotes alveolar overdistention and lung injury. Successive panels have devoted considerable energy to developing a more precise definition of ARDS to homogenize the recruitment of patients into clinical trials. Each of three pillars of the prevailing Berlin definition is extremely flimsy and the source of confusion and unscientific practices. For doctors at the bedside, none of the revisions have enhanced patient care over that using the original 1967 description of Ashbaugh and colleagues. Bedside doctors are better advised to diagnose ARDS on the basis of pattern recognition and instead concentrate their vigilance on resolving the numerous hidden dangers that follow inevitably once a diagnosis has been made.