# Old and New Definitions of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): An Overview of Practical Considerations and Clinical Implications

## TL;DR

This paper discusses how evolving definitions of ARDS impact diagnosis and treatment, especially with new ventilation methods like NIV and HFNC.

## Contribution

The paper proposes a more nuanced diagnostic framework for ARDS incorporating biomarkers and individualized strategies.

## Key findings

- Excluding patients on NIV or HFNC from ARDS diagnosis risks delayed treatment and lung injury.
- Proposed criteria include NIV/HFNC, lung ultrasound, and SpO2/FiO2 ratios for broader ARDS detection.
- Biomarkers like IL-6, IL-8, and IFN-γ could improve ARDS diagnosis and patient outcomes.

## Abstract

Lower respiratory tract infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among Intensive Care Unit patients, with severe cases often progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This life-threatening syndrome results from alveolar–capillary membrane injury, causing refractory hypoxemia and respiratory failure. Early detection and management are critical to treat the underlying cause, provide protective lung ventilation, and, eventually, improve patient outcomes. The 2012 Berlin definition standardized ARDS diagnosis but excluded patients on non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) modalities, which are increasingly used, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. By excluding these patients, diagnostic delays can occur, risking the progression of lung injury despite ongoing support. Indeed, sustained, vigorous respiratory efforts under non-invasive modalities carry significant potential for patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), underscoring the need to broaden diagnostic criteria to encompass these increasingly common therapies. Recent proposals expand ARDS criteria to include NIV and HFNCs, lung ultrasound, and the SpO2/FiO2 ratio adaptations designed to improve diagnosis in resource-limited settings lacking arterial blood gases or advanced imaging. However, broader criteria risk overdiagnosis and create challenges in distinguishing ARDS from other causes of acute hypoxemic failure. Furthermore, inter-observer variability in imaging interpretation and inconsistencies in oxygenation assessment, particularly when relying on non-invasive measurements, may compromise diagnostic reliability. To overcome these limitations, a more nuanced diagnostic framework is needed—one that incorporates individualized therapeutic strategies, emphasizes lung-protective ventilation, and integrates advanced physiological or biomarker-based indicators like IL-6, IL-8, and IFN-γ, which are associated with worse outcomes. Such an approach has the potential to improve patient stratification, enable more targeted interventions, and ultimately support the design and conduct of more effective interventional studies.