Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-021-00908-3
DC FieldValue
dc.titleP/FP ratio: incorporation of PEEP into the PaO2/FiO2 ratio for prognostication and classification of acute respiratory distress syndrome
dc.contributor.authorPalanidurai, Sunitha
dc.contributor.authorPhua, Jason
dc.contributor.authorChan, Yiong Huak
dc.contributor.authorMukhopadhyay, Amartya
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-11T07:46:49Z
dc.date.available2022-10-11T07:46:49Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-09
dc.identifier.citationPalanidurai, Sunitha, Phua, Jason, Chan, Yiong Huak, Mukhopadhyay, Amartya (2021-08-09). P/FP ratio: incorporation of PEEP into the PaO2/FiO2 ratio for prognostication and classification of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Annals of Intensive Care 11 (1) : 124. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-021-00908-3
dc.identifier.issn2110-5820
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/231923
dc.description.abstractBackground: The current Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) uses the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio to classify severity. However, for the same P/F ratio, a patient on a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may have more severe lung injury than one on a lower PEEP. Objectives: We designed a new formula, the P/FP ratio, incorporating PEEP into the P/F ratio and multiplying with a correction factor of 10 [(PaO2*10)/(FiO2*PEEP)], to evaluate if it better predicts hospital mortality compared to the P/F ratio post-intubation and to assess the resultant changes in severity classification of ARDS. Methods: We categorized patients from a dataset of seven ARDS network trials using the thresholds of ? 100 (severe), 101–200 (moderate), and 201–300 (mild) for both P/F (mmHg) and P/FP (mmHg/cmH2O) ratios and evaluated hospital mortality using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Results: Out of 3,442 patients, 1,057 (30.7%) died. The AUC for mortality was higher for the P/FP ratio than the P/F ratio for PEEP levels > 5 cmH2O: 0.710 (95% CI 0.691–0.730) versus 0.659 (95% CI 0.637–0.681), P < 0.001. Improved AUC was seen with increasing PEEP levels; for PEEP ? 18 cmH2O: 0.963 (95% CI 0.947–0.978) versus 0.828 (95% CI 0.765–0.891), P < 0.001. When the P/FP ratio was used instead of the P/F ratio, 12.5% and 15% of patients with moderate and mild ARDS, respectively, were moved to more severe categories, while 13.9% and 33.6% of patients with severe and moderate ARDS, respectively, were moved to milder categories. The median PEEP and FiO2 were 14 cmH2O and 0.70 for patients reclassified to severe ARDS, and 5 cmH2O and 0.40 for patients reclassified to mild ARDS. Conclusions: The multifactorial P/FP ratio has a greater predictive validity for hospital mortality in ARDS than the P/F ratio. Changes in severity classification with the P/FP ratio reflect both true illness severity and the applied PEEP strategy. Trial registration: ClinialTrials.gov–NCT03946150. © 2021, The Author(s).
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceScopus OA2021
dc.subjectAcute respiratory distress syndrome
dc.subjectMortality
dc.subjectPaO2/FiO2 ratio
dc.subjectPositive end-expiratory pressure
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentMEDICINE
dc.contributor.departmentDEAN'S OFFICE (MEDICINE)
dc.description.doi10.1186/s13613-021-00908-3
dc.description.sourcetitleAnnals of Intensive Care
dc.description.volume11
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page124
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1186_s13613-021-00908-3.pdf3.01 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons