CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 268Respiratory Support and MechanismsNosocomial Infections in ICUSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recovery Rate and Prognosis in Older Persons Who Develop Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Ely, E. Wesley, Wheeler, Arthur P., Thompson, B. Taylor, Ancukiewicz, Marek, Steinberg, Kenneth P., Bernard, Gordon R., for the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network·2002·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-136-1-200201010-00007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation increases 10-fold from the ages of 55 to 85 years, yet the rate of recovery and outcomes in older persons who develop acute lung injury are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: To examine age as an independent risk factor in recovery and intensive care unit discharge after acute lung injury. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 10 U.S. university-based medical centers. PATIENTS: 902 mechanically ventilated patients enrolled in randomized, controlled trials for the treatment of acute lung injury. All patients were managed according to a standardized protocol for ventilator management and weaning. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and time to achieve well-defined recovery landmarks, duration of ventilation and intensive care unit stay, and survival. RESULTS: Median duration of mechanical ventilation was 19 days (interquartile range, 7 to >28 days) for patients 70 years of age or older (n = 173) compared with 10 days (interquartile range, 5 to 26 days) for patients younger than 70 years of age (n = 729) (P < 0.001). The duration of intensive care unit stay was 21 days for the older group (interquartile range, 11 to >28 days) and 16 days for the younger group (8 to >28 days) (P = 0.004). Survival rates decreased across increasing decades of age (P < 0.001): Patients younger than 70 years of age had a greater 28-day survival rate than patients 70 years of age or older (74.6% vs. 50.3%; P < 0.001). The proportion of survivors achieving physiologic recovery landmarks did not differ between the older and younger age groups, and the median time to pass a 2-hour spontaneous breathing trial was similar between both the older and younger patients (4 days vs. 5 days; P > 0.2). After passing a spontaneous breathing trial, however, older patients required 1 more day than younger patients to achieve unassisted breathing (P = 0.002) and 3 more days to leave the intensive care unit (P = 0.005). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, age of 70 years or older was a strong predictor of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0 to 3.2]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the survival rate among patients 70 years of age or older was high, these patients were twice as likely to die of acute lung injury compared with their younger counterparts, even after adjustment for covariates. Older survivors recovered from respiratory failure and achieved spontaneous breathing at the same rate as younger patients but had greater difficulty achieving liberation from the ventilator and being discharged from the intensive care unit.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-136-1-200201010-00007

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bernard GR, 1995, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 151, A323

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 268

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ely, E. W., Wheeler, A. P., Thompson, B. T., Ancukiewicz, M., Steinberg, K. P., Bernard, G. R., & for the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2002-01-01
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
25-36
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-136-1-200201010-00007
OpenAlex
W1509398403
Cited by
268
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 14
FWCI
12.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hr046054-006)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG 01023-01A1, K23AG001023)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01-HR46054-46064)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, older adults, age as risk factor, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU length of stay, survival, spontaneous breathing trial, weaning from mechanical ventilation, prognosis
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Critical Care, Humans, Length of Stay, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Respiration, Artificial, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Respiratory Insufficiency, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Ventilator Weaning, Proportional Hazards Models, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Statistics, Nonparametric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review