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


Abstract

Objectives: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a highly heterogeneous syndrome which exhibits significant differences in the underlying causes, responses to treatment and prognosis. It is mandatory to make subtypes of ARDS to guideline clinical treatment and trial design. The study aimed to identify subtypes of ARDS using latent class analysis. Design: 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. Latent class analysis was performed incorporating variables on day 1 after enrollment. The number of classes was chosen by maximum log-likelihood, Akaike Information Criterion and the number of patients in each class. Setting: secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients: patients within 48 hours of developing ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation. Interventions: none. Measurements and main results: A total of 1000 patients were enrolled in the study, including 233 non-survivors and 767 survivors. The latent class analysis identified three classes of ARDS. Class 1 (hemodynamically stable type) had significantly higher survival rate (p=0.015) and cumulative incidence of unassisted breathing (p=0.016) than class 2 (non-SIRS type) and 3 (SIRS type) through 90 days follow up. There was significant interaction between cumulative fluid balance and the class (p=0.03). While more fluid balance was beneficial for class 2, it was harmful for class 1 and 3. Conclusions: 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. Trial registration: NCT00609180. Registered February 6, 2008.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.