Identification of three classes of acute respiratory distress syndrome using latent class analysis.

Pubmed ID: 29610712

Pubmed Central ID: PMC5880177

Journal: PeerJ

Publication Date: March 30, 2018

Affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5880177/pdf/peerj-06-4592.pdf?link_time=2024-03-28_15:42:33.607896

Authors: Zhang Z

Cite As: Zhang Z. Identification of three classes of acute respiratory distress syndrome using latent class analysis. PeerJ 2018 Mar 30;6:e4592. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4592. eCollection 2018.

Studies:

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a highly heterogeneous syndrome that can exhibit significant differences in the underlying causes, leading to different responses to treatment. It is required to identify subtypes of ARDS to guideline clinical treatment and trial design. The study aimed to identify subtypes of ARDS using latent class analysis (LCA). The study was a secondary analysis of the EDEN study, which was a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial conducted from January 2, 2008 to April 12, 2011. The primary study endpoint was death through 90-day follow up. LCA was performed incorporating variables on day 0 before randomization. The number of classes was chosen by a bootstrapped likelihood ratio test, Bayesian information criterion and the number of patients in each class. A total of 943 patients were enrolled in the study, including 219 (23.2%) non-survivors and 724 (76.8%) survivors. The LCA identified three classes of ARDS. Class 1 (hemodynamically unstable type) had significantly higher mortality rate (<i>p</i> = 0.003) than class 2 (intermediate type) and 3 (stable type) through 90 days follow up. There was significant interaction between cumulative fluid balance and the class (<i>p</i> = 0.02). While more fluid balance was beneficial for class 1, it was harmful for class 2 and 3. In conclusion, the study identified three classes of ARDS, which showed different clinical presentations, responses to fluid therapy and prognosis. The classification system used simple clinical variables and could help to design ARDS trials in the future.