Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subphenotypes Respond Differently to Randomized Fluid Management Strategy.

Pubmed ID: 27513822

Pubmed Central ID: PMC5328179

Journal: American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine

Publication Date: Feb. 1, 2017

MeSH Terms: Humans, Male, Female, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Fluid Therapy, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Phenotype, Biomarkers, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Grants: N01 HR016146, K24 HL103836, R21 HL112656, R01 HL110969, R01 HL131621, K24 HL133390, T32 HL007185, F32 HL129680, K23 HL116800

Authors: Thompson BT, Ware LB, Calfee CS, Liu KD, Delucchi K, Famous KR, Kangelaris KN

Cite As: Famous KR, Delucchi K, Ware LB, Kangelaris KN, Liu KD, Thompson BT, Calfee CS, ARDS Network. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subphenotypes Respond Differently to Randomized Fluid Management Strategy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017 Feb 1;195(3):331-338.

Studies:

Abstract

RATIONALE: We previously identified two acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes in two separate randomized controlled trials with differential response to positive end-expiratory pressure. OBJECTIVES: To identify these subphenotypes in a third ARDS cohort, to test whether subphenotypes respond differently to fluid management strategy, and to develop a practical model for subphenotype identification. METHODS: We used latent class analysis of baseline clinical and plasma biomarker data to identify subphenotypes in FACTT (Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial; n = 1,000). Logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between subphenotype and treatment for mortality. We used stepwise modeling to generate a model for subphenotype identification in FACTT and validated its accuracy in the two cohorts in which we previously identified ARDS subphenotypes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We confirmed that a two-class (two-subphenotype) model best described the study population. Subphenotype 2 was again characterized by higher inflammatory biomarkers and hypotension. Fluid management strategy had significantly different effects on 90-day mortality in the two subphenotypes (P = 0.0039 for interaction); mortality in subphenotype 1 was 26% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 18% with fluid-conservative, whereas mortality in subphenotype 2 was 40% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 50% in fluid-conservative. A three-variable model of IL-8, bicarbonate, and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 accurately classified the subphenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the presence of two ARDS subphenotypes that can be accurately identified with a limited number of variables and that responded differently to randomly assigned fluid management. These findings support the presence of ARDS subtypes that may require different treatment approaches.