Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 193693

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : April | Volume : 18 | Issue : 4 | Page : SC06 - SC10 Full Version

Clinical Profile and Outcome of Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit of Eastern India: A Prospective Cohort Study


Published: April 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/67340.19244
Gobinda Mondal, Manoj Kumar Sahoo, Anjan Kumar Das, Banasree Roy, Asok Kumar Mandal

1. Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Dr. B.C. Roy Postgraduate Institute of Pediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 2. Resident, Department of Neonatology, Surya Children Hospital, Mumbai, Maharastra, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Dr. B.C. Roy Postgraduate Institute of Pediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Deben Mahato Government Medical College & Hospital, Purulia, West Bengal, India. 5. Professor & Head, Department of Paediatrics, Dr. B.C. Roy Postgraduate Institute of Pediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

Correspondence Address :
Banasree Roy,
19/C/3, Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Kolkata-700010, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: drbr1978@rediffmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Paediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PARDS) remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) despite various advanced management strategies. The management and outcome of PARDS depend on the severity of the disease.

Aim: To study the clinical profile in terms of aetiology and outcome of paediatric patients with moderate to severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in the PICU.

Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at the PICU in Dr. BC Roy Postgraduate Institute of Paediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, from July 2018 to June 2019. A total of 120 children aged between two months and 12 years who developed moderate to severe ARDS according to Paediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) criteria were included. Demographic details, different risk factors, morbidity patterns, and outcomes were recorded. Patients were categorised into three groups based on Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP): 5-8 cm of H2O, 9-12 cm of H2O, and >12 cm of H2O. Based on Peak Inspiratory Pressure (PIP), patients were divided into two groups: <30 cm of H2O and 30-35 cm of H2O. Data were statistically analysed using the Chi-square test, Fisher’s test, and t-tests where applicable.

Results: Out of a total of 120 children with moderate to severe ARDS, there were 75 males and 45 females. Direct lung injury accounted for 79 cases (65.5%), while indirect lung injury occurred in 41 cases (34.5%). Pneumonia and sepsis were the most common causes of direct and indirect lung injury, respectively. Among 75 cases of pneumonia, 40 deaths were reported (53.3%), and out of 37 cases of sepsis, 31 resulted in death (83%). On the day of admission, 38.3% of cases were classified as moderate ARDS and 61.7% as severe ARDS. The mortality rate for severe ARDS was 77%, compared to 43.5% for moderate ARDS. The mortality rate was 100% in the PEEP max >12 cm of H2O group and 84.4% in the PIP 30-35 cm of H2O group.

Conclusion: The majority of ARDS cases are due to direct lung injury caused by pneumonia, and the outcome is better than in cases of indirect lung injury. Mortality is nearly twice as high in severe ARDS as in moderate ARDS.

Keywords

Direct lung injury, Hypoxemia, Pneumonia, Sepsis

ARDS is defined by pulmonary oedema, atelectasis, and severe ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch which leads to hypoxaemia and hypercapnia (1). ARDS is a clinical syndrome caused by the disruption of the alveolar epithelial-endothelial membrane, not due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. There is an accumulation of protein-rich fluid in the alveoli with inflammation and coagulation, resulting in impaired lymphatic drainage as well as the destruction of surfactant. Ultimately, this leads to a restrictive lung disease with hypoxaemia, parenchymal opacities in radiographs, increased physiological dead space, decreased functional residual capacity, and decreased lung compliance. If the patient survives, the lung heals by fibrosis in a few weeks (2).

In some studies, ARDS has been described as adult respiratory distress syndrome, but it is now a well-known entity in children (3),(4). The definition of ARDS is gradually evolving from its first description in 1967 (5). The American European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition was published in 1994 (6). Berlin’s criteria (7) to diagnose ARDS came into action in 2012, and finally, the PALICC group made a recommendation for the paediatric population (8). The guidelines by PALICC broadened the criteria in 2015 by including pulse oximetry as the paucity of invasive blood gas analysis may underestimate the actual number of PARDS (8).

The common causes of PARDS are viral respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, aspiration, shock, burns, inhalational injury, transfusion-related massive lung injury, and traumatic injury. All of these factors lead to inflammation in the lungs, increased vascular permeability, and pulmonary oedema affecting oxygenation (9). Acute pancreatitis, envenomation, drowning and submersion injuries, drug reactions, malignancies, and transplantation are some other causal factors for ARDS (2).

The most common cause of death in the PICU is respiratory failure, and PARDS remains a major entity in PICU admissions. The mortality rate varies widely due to associated factors like shock, sepsis, multi-organ involvement, and others (2). In a meta-analysis by Wong JJ et al., the mortality rate was found to be around 24%, although there has been a downward trend in the last few decades (10). An Indian study by Lodha R et al., showed that overall 75% of children died of ARDS. The major contributing factor was refractory hypoxaemia (11). Another retrospective study by Chetan G et al., showed that the majority of ARDS cases are caused by primary lung pathology (53%), while the rest (47%) had non-pulmonary causes (12). In both studies, there was no categorisation of the severity of ARDS and their outcome based on severity.

With this background, this study was planned to investigate the clinical profile in terms of aetiology and outcome of paediatric patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the PICU and was conducted to observe the mortality in different categories of ARDS.

Material and Methods

This prospective cohort study was conducted in the PICU of Dr. BC Roy Postgraduate Institute of Paediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. The study took place over a period of one year from July 2018 to June 2019. The study commenced after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (BCH/ME/PR/2675A dated 25/09/2017).

Inclusion criteria: All children aged between two months and 12 years admitted to the PICU with respiratory distress were selected. Children exhibiting tachypnoea and respiratory distress, as indicated by head nodding, grunting, stridor, sub-costal and/or intercostal retractions, were admitted to the emergency ward and, after initial management, were transferred to the PICU (13). Additionally, patients admitted to the High Dependency Unit (HDU) or PICU for other reasons who developed signs of respiratory distress during their stay were screened for ARDS.

Exclusion criteria: Children with known congenital heart disease, chronic lung or kidney disease, and pulmonary anomalies were excluded.

After obtaining written informed consent in the local vernacular language, patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study.

Procedure

Data collection: Detailed histories were obtained, and clinical examinations were conducted. Patients identified with moderate to severe ARDS either by Berlin’s criteria or PALICC criteria were included in the study (7),(8). Patients were categorised as having moderate ARDS when the Oxygenation Index (OI) remained >8-16, Oxygen Saturation Index (OSI) was 7.5-12.3, or PaO2/FiO2 was 101-200. Severe ARDS cases were identified when OI was >16, OSI was >12.3, or PaO2/FiO2 was <100.

Demographic details, clinical findings, and laboratory reports were collected during their stay. All relevant investigations to detect ARDS, assess its severity, and determine the aetiology were performed. This included complete blood count, liver and renal function tests, serum electrolytes, glucose levels, blood culture, tracheal aspirate for culture and sensitivity, viral studies using nucleic acid amplification tests, arterial blood gas measurements, chest imaging, and echocardiography.

The authors, through these investigations identified the direct predisposing factors of ARDS, where the primary involvement is in the lung epithelium, and the indirect predisposing factors, where the primary organ involvement is elsewhere, subsequently affecting the lung through endothelial disruption. ARDS caused by direct factors is distinct from ARDS resulting from indirect causes (14).

All children in the study were mechanically ventilated in pressure-controlled mode using a Maquet SERVO-i ventilator. Tidal volume was maintained in the range of 5-6 mL/kg of body weight with PEEP levels ranging from 5-15 cm H2O, while efforts were made to keep driving pressure between 15-20 cm H2O. Some patients required higher PEEP to sustain oxygenation. Patients were divided into three groups based on PEEP levels: 5-8 cm H2O, 9-12 cm H2O, and >12 cm H2O. Based on Peak Inspiratory Pressure (PIP), patients were categorised into two groups: <30 cm H2O and 30-35 cm H2O for this study. Recruitment manoeuvres and prone positioning were attempted in patients who did not achieve an SpO2 above 88% with conventional pressure-controlled mode using high PEEP, and the PRVC mode was employed to reach the target SpO2 (8). Arterial lines were not utilised in any patients, but central venous lines were placed in all patients. The EtCO2 monitoring was conducted for all children. No patients underwent high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. Outcomes in terms of mortality were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. The chi-square test, Fisher’s test, and t-tests were performed where applicable to determine the association between categorical variables. The level of significance (p-value) for this study was set at 0.05.

Results

A total of 713 admissions were recorded in the PICU during the study period, of which 120 children met the criteria for moderate to severe ARDS. Therefore, the prevalence of moderate to severe ARDS was 16.83%.

The age distribution ranged from three months to 12 years, with a mean age of 37.67±28.5 months. The Interquartile Range (IQR) was 50 (2-60 months). Among the children, 55 (45.8%) were infants, 37 (30.8%) were in the one to five-year age group, and 28 (23.3%) were in the 5 to 12 years age group, respectively. Of the total cases, 45 (37.5%) were females. The mortality rate was notably higher in the lower age group. The overall mortality rate for moderate to severe ARDS was 64.2%. In the study group, 79 (65.8%) patients were diagnosed with primary ARDS, while 41 (34.2%) patients developed ARDS later in the course. It was observed that 46 (38.3%) cases had moderate ARDS (P/F ratio 100-200). Among children with severe ARDS, the mortality rate was 77% compared to 43.5% in cases of moderate ARDS. Analysis of these results revealed a statistically significant relationship between the P/F ratio and mortality (p<0.0001) (Table/Fig 1).

A total of 39 patients (32.5%) had a total white blood cell count above 11000, of which 25 (64.1%) patients died. C-Reactive Protein (CRP) levels were elevated in 79 (65.83%) patients, of which 53 (67.1%) patients died. Abnormal serum creatinine levels were observed in 38 (31.7%) patients, of which 32 (84.2%) died. Elevated liver enzymes were found in 33 (27.5%) patients, of which 12 (36.3%) patients died. Hyponatraemia was present in 62 (51.7%) patients, and hypernatraemia was found in 5 (4.1%) patients. Hypoglycemia was evident in 19 (15.8%) patients (Table/Fig 2).

Direct lung injury accounted for 79 cases (65.5%), with pneumonia being the most common cause (94%). The remaining cases (34.5%) were attributed to non-pulmonary aetiologies. Non-pulmonary sepsis (91%) was the leading cause among indirect causes of lung injury. The mortality rate among children with pneumonia and non-pulmonary sepsis was 40 (53.3%) and 31 (83.8%), respectively. There was a statistically significant association between predisposing factors and the outcome, with a p-value of 0.0090 (Table/Fig 3).

A significant association was found between the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and the outcome. The association between maximum PEEP and the outcome was significant, as was the association between maximum PIP and the outcome. The mean duration of ventilation stay for children who died was 4.2208±1.1656, while for discharged children, it was 6.7907±1.3897. The duration of ventilator stay was significantly associated with the outcome (Table/Fig 4).

Blood culture reports were positive in 72 (60%) of children, of whom 58 (80.6%) died. Some patients with primary pneumonia also had positive blood cultures (Table/Fig 5).

Multiorgan failure developed in 76 (63.3%) of children, while disseminated intravascular coagulopathy developed in 53 (44.2%) of children. Among children with Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS), the mortality rate was 71 (93.4%), and the death rate was 86.8% in children with Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC). A total of 58 (80.5%) children with positive blood culture reports died. All patients received various types of inotropic support, and the mean Vasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS) at 24 hours was 69.56±26.69 in the non-survivor group and 45.79±31.39 in the survivor group. In the moderate PEEP Max group (9-12), the mortality rate was 33.3%. All patients (100%) in the severe PEEP max group (>12) died. Among the 90 patients with a PIP max of 30-35, 76 (84.4%) died. Out of 74 children with severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100), 57 (77%) died (Table/Fig 6).

The PRVC mode was applied in 70 patients (58.3%), all of whom had a 100% mortality rate. Recruitment manoeuvres were performed in 92 (76.7%) patients, and prone positioning was done in 103 patients (85.8%).

Discussion

The prevalence of moderate to severe ARDS among PICU admissions was higher in the present study (16.83%) compared to other studies (Table/Fig 7) (11),(14),(15),(16),(17),(18). In an Indian study, the prevalence of ARDS was reported to be 9.9% (16). The high turnover rates in the PICU may be a probable cause of this high prevalence of ARDS. In another Indian study by Yadav B et al., the prevalence of ARDS was found to be 11.4% with a mortality rate of 45.2% (15).

In a study by Gupta S et al., primary ARDS due to pneumonia and aspiration accounted for 75% of cases, with the remaining 25% attributed to sepsis (16). This finding is similar to the present study, where a direct lung cause was responsible for 65.83% of ARDS cases. In a study by Bouziri A et al., a primary lung cause was responsible for 76.2% of cases, which is also comparable to the present study (17). In a study by Yadav B et al., the most common primary aetiologies of ARDS were pneumonia, severe sepsis, and scrub typhus, which is comparable (15). The study by Pujari CG et al., showed pneumonia (66%) as the most common cause of ARDS with the majority (35.9%) moderate ARDS group (18). This finding is similar to the present study. In the study by Gupta S et al., sepsis was identified as the precipitating cause of PARDS in 37% of cases (16). In the present study, 37 patients (30.83%) had sepsis that led to the development of ARDS, and the result is comparable.

The death rate was significantly high at 64.2% in the present study compared to the mortality rate of 24% derived from pooled data in the meta-analysis conducted by Wong JJ et al., (10). In an Indian study, the overall mortality rate for ARDS was reported to be 33% (18). The wide variation in mortality rates may be attributed to the consideration of only the moderate to severe category of ARDS in the present study. Additionally, the absence of advanced ventilation modalities like high-frequency oscillatory ventilators, inhaled Nitric Oxide therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy in our centre may have contributed to the higher mortality rate. The study by Yadav B et al., demonstrated a mortality rate of 45.2%, which is consistent with the present findings (15). The mortality rate was particularly high in the infantile age group (94.54%) in the present study, with most of them also experiencing MODS (n=50). In studies by Hu X et al., and Lodha R et al., no specific age group was significantly associated with high mortality (11),(19). In a prospective multicentre study by Erickson S et al., in Australia and New Zealand on acute lung injury in the PICU, they identified older age as a risk factor for mortality (20). However, in the present study, mortality was highest below one year of age (Table/Fig 1).

In a prospective observational multicentre study in North America, the mortality rate was reported to be 17% (21). This wide variation is likely due to early diagnosis and better supportive and advanced therapeutic care in developed countries. In a retrospective study from North India, the mortality rate was 57.7%, which closely aligns with the results of the present study (16). Another one-year study from Tunisia revealed an overall mortality of 66.7%, which is comparable to the present study. However, mortality was higher in patients with primary lung pathology (70%) than in children with other non-pulmonary causes (17). This finding contrasts with the study here, where mortality was higher for sepsis-induced ARDS.

In this study, it was found that 76 (63.3%) of children developed MODS during their hospital stay, with 93% of these children experiencing death. The relationship between MODS and outcome was statistically significant (p<0.0001). This finding was supported by the study conducted by Chetan G et al., where they observed 100% mortality in children who developed MODS (12). Hu X et al., in their multicentric collaborative study, documented that the predominant cause of death in ARDS was MODS, accounting for 81% of cases (19). Another study by Dowell JC et al., found that 41% of deaths from ARDS were attributed to multi-organ failure (22). The limitation of available intensive care facilities may be the cause of this difference. In the present study, 53 (44%) of children developed DIC during their hospital stay, and 86.8% (n=46) of them died due to this complication (p<0.0001). This finding is consistent with the study conducted by Chetan G et al., which reported a 100% mortality rate in children with DIC as a complication (12).

In this study, the authors found that 38.3% of cases had moderate ARDS (P/F ratio 100-200) and 61.7% of cases had severe ARDS (P/F ratio <100) on Day 1 of admission at the PICU. The mortality rate was 77% in severe ARDS compared to 43.5% in moderate ARDS, and a statistically significant relationship was found between the P/F ratio and mortality (p<0.0001). Wolfler A et al., reported that mortality in children with severe ARDS was 78.3% compared to 21.7% in moderate ARDS (23). In a multicentre study by Hu X et al., a P/F ratio <100 mm Hg had a mortality rate of 62% compared to 31% in a P/F ratio of 100-200 mmHg (19). Similarly, Erickson S et al., studied 117 cases and noted that a minimum P/F ratio <53 mmHg predicted mortality exceeding 70.5% with a specificity of over 92% (20). The study by Pujari CG et al., attributed 58% of deaths to severe ARDS (18).

The authors divided the study population into two groups based on the maximum PIP used in ventilated children. In 25% of cases, we used <30 cm H2O of PIP (Group-1), while in 75% of cases, we used 30-35 cm H2O of PIP (Group-2). In the present study, the mortality rate in Group-1 was 3.3%, whereas in Group-2, it was 84.4%. The results of the present study showed a significant relationship between the use of high PIP and increased mortality (p<0.0001). The mean PIP max was 28 cm H2O in the discharged population of our study compared to 33 cm H2O in children who died. This finding is in line with the study by Lodha R et al., which indicated that high PIP was used in the non-survivors group of ARDS in an attempt to improve oxygenation in children with more severe disease (11).

The mean PEEP MAX used in survivors was 9.1628±0.949 cm H2O, while in non-survivors it was 13.7±0.93 cm H2O. These findings are consistent with the study conducted by Bouziri A et al., who reported that the mean maximum PEEP used in survivors was 8.2±1.5 (17). Another study by Chetan G et al., found that the mean PEEP max used in the survivor group was 10 cm H2O (12). Erickson S et al., identified a statistically significant correlation between the increase in PEEP and the increase in mortality (20).

In present study population, the mean duration of ventilator stay was 6.7±1.3 days in children who were discharged. The mean value was 4±1.1 days in the non-survivor group, and this result was statistically significant. Similar results were reported by Chetan G et al., where the mean duration of ventilator stay was 6.8 days in the survivor group and 3.7 days in children in the non-survivor group of ARDS (12).

Limitation(s)

In this hospital-based study, there is a significant limitation in the availability of proper advanced management for paediatric ARDS, such as high-frequency oscillatory ventilators and Extra-Corpeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO). The administration of appropriate cardio-respiratory support could have further reduced the mortality rate.

Conclusion

The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a common condition in the paediatric population with a significantly high mortality rate. Primary pulmonary pathology, such as pneumonia, was associated with ARDS in nearly one-third of patients. Nonpulmonary sepsis was identified as a significant predisposing factor for mortality and should be aggressively treated. Multi-organ failure was observed in 92% of patients who died from ARDS. Therefore, supportive care, including invasive monitoring and attention to multiorgan dysfunction, is crucial to improve outcomes. A minimum P/F ratio, high PEEP, and high PIP values were indicative of poor outcomes. Thus, lung-protective strategies and recruitment manoeuvres are essential. Further multi-centric studies, including all cases of ARDS, are needed to understand the detailed clinical profile and accurately reflect mortality rates in this region.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge all participants and the support staff of the PICU.

References

1.
Gierhardt M, Park O, Walmrath D, Seeger W, Grimminger F, Ghofrani HA, et al. Impairment of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eur Respir Rev. 2021;30(161):210059. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Orloff, KE,Turner DA, Rehder, KJ. The current state of paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Paediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2019;32(2):35-44. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Petty TL, Ashbaugh DG. The adult respiratory distress syndrome. Clinical features, factors influencing prognosis and principles of management. Chest. 1971;60(3):233-39. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Cutts S, Talboys R, Paspula C, Prempeh EM, Fanous R, Ail D. Adult respiratory distress syndrome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99(1):12-16. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Ashbaugh DG, Bigelow DB, Petty TL, Levine BE. Acute respiratory distress in adults. Lancet. 1967;2(7511):319-23. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, et al. Report of the American-European consensus conference on ARDS: Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes and clinical trial coordination. The Consensus Committee. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20(3):225-32. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
ARDS Definition Task Force; Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: The Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526-33. [crossref]
8.
Paediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference Group. Paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: Consensus recommendations from the Paediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference. Paediatr Crit Care Med. 2015;16(5):428-39. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Ahmed R, Azim A, Nangialay A, Haque A, Jurair H. Frequency of paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome based on oxygen saturation index in paediatric intensive care unit of a developing country. Cureus. 2019;11(12):e6444. [crossref]
10.
Wong JJ, Jit M, Sultana R, Mok YH, Yeo JG, Koh JWJC, et al. Mortality in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Med. 2019;34(7):563-71. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Lodha R, Kabra SK, Pandey RM. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Experience at a tertiary care hospital. Indian Paediatr. 2001;38(10):1154-59.
12.
Chetan G, Rathisharmila R, Narayanan P, Mahadevan S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in paediatric intensive care unit. Indian J Pediatr, 2009;76(10):1013-16. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Singh J, Bhardwar V, Sobti P, Pooni PA. Clinical profile and outcome of acute respiratory failure in children: A prospective study in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Clin Ped. 2014;3(2):46-50. [crossref]
14.
Shaver CM, Bastarache JA. Clinical and biological heterogeneity in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Direct versus indirect lung injury. Clin Chest Med. 2014;35(4):639-53. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Yadav B, Bansal A, Jayashree M. Clinical profile and predictors of outcome of paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome in a PICU: A prospective observational study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;20(6):e263-73. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Gupta S, Sankar J, Lodha R, Kabra SK. Comparison of prevalence and outcomes of paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome using paediatric acute lung injury consensus conference criteria and Berlin definition. Front Paediatr. 2018;6:93. Doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00093. eCollection 2018. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Bouziri A, Borgi A, Fares M, Ghali N, Khaldi A, Menif K, Jaballah NB, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in a paediatric intensive care unit. Paediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2014;15(4):92. [crossref]
18.
Pujari CG, Lalitha AV, Raj JM, Kavilapurapu A. Epidemiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome in paediatric intensive care unit: Single-center experience. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022;26(8):949-55. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Hu X, Qian S, Xu F, Huang B, Zhou D, Wang Y, et al., Chinese Collaborative Study Group for Paediatric Respiratory Failure. Incidence, management and mortality of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome from a prospective study of Chinese paediatric intensive care network. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(5):715-21. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Erickson S, Schibler A, Numa A, Nuthall G, Yung M, Pascoe E, et al. Paediatric Study Group; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society. Acute lung injury in paediatric intensive care in Australia and New Zealand: A prospective, multicenter, observational study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007;8(4):317-23. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Khemani RG, Smith L, Lopez-Fernandez YM, Kwok J, Morzov R, Klein MJ, et al. Paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE): An international, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(2):115-28. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Dowell JC, Parvathaneni K, Thomas NJ, Khemani RG, Yehya N. Epidemiology of cause of death in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(11):1811-19. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Wolfler A, Piastra M, Amigoni A, Santuz P, Gitto E, Rossetti E, et al. A shared protocol for porcine surfactant use in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: A feasibility study. BMC Paediatr. 2019;19(1):203.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/67340.19244

Date of Submission: Sep 02, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Nov 14, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jan 29, 2024
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 05, 2023
• Manual Googling: Nov 17, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jan 25, 2024 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com