Role of invasive hemodynamics monitoring in sepsis intensive care

I. A. Kozlov, A. Ovezov, S. A. Rautbart
{"title":"Role of invasive hemodynamics monitoring in sepsis intensive care","authors":"I. A. Kozlov, A. Ovezov, S. A. Rautbart","doi":"10.33667/2078-5631-2024-3-23-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective was to study the effect of early planned use of transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) and therapeutic measures to stabilize blood circulation on the clinical outcome of sepsis.Materials and methods. The cohort study involved 132 patients with abdominal sepsis with SOFA >7 and blood lactate >1.6 mmol/L. Septic shock was diagnosed in 56 % of patients. TPTD in the early periods of intensive care was began in 53.8 % of patients. Logistic regression and ROC-analysis were used to process the data.Results. Early use of invasive monitoring (OR 2,3715, 95 % CI 1,1107–5,0635, p=0,026, AUC 0.655) and infusion volume >43 ml/kg per day (OR 1.0313, 95 % CI 1.0073–1.0558, p=0.01, AUC 0.677) were predictors of survival in patients with abdominal sepsis. The use of TPTD compared to patients of group II was accompanied by an increase in the daily infusion volume (53.7 [38.1–63.5] vs 38.2 [29.9–47.2], ml/kg per day, p = 0.0001), more frequent use of inotropic drugs (39.4 vs 16.4 %, p = 0.004), and higher level of the inotropic scale (0 [0–4.7] vs 0 [0–0], p = 0.01). There were no differences in the frequency of prescription (57.7 vs 65.5 %, p = 0.376) and dosages (0.2 [0.1–0.4] vs 0.3 [0.2–0.4] μg/kg/min, p = 0.554) of norepinephrine. Twenty-eight-day mortality in groups I and II was 31 and 50.8 % (p = 0.022), hospital mortality was 32.9 and 54.0 % (p = 0.014).Conclusion. When assessed by SOFA > 7 points and lactatemia > 1.6 mmol/L, the onset of TPTD and infusion volume > 43 mL/kg/day increase the likelihood of survival of patients with abdominal sepsis, as a result, 28-day and hospital mortality decrease by 1.6 times. The use of invasive monitoring of central hemodynamics in this clinical situation is accompanied by an increase in the prescription of inotropes by 2.4 times with an unchanged intensity of norepinephrine use. ","PeriodicalId":18337,"journal":{"name":"Medical alphabet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical alphabet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2024-3-23-28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective was to study the effect of early planned use of transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) and therapeutic measures to stabilize blood circulation on the clinical outcome of sepsis.Materials and methods. The cohort study involved 132 patients with abdominal sepsis with SOFA >7 and blood lactate >1.6 mmol/L. Septic shock was diagnosed in 56 % of patients. TPTD in the early periods of intensive care was began in 53.8 % of patients. Logistic regression and ROC-analysis were used to process the data.Results. Early use of invasive monitoring (OR 2,3715, 95 % CI 1,1107–5,0635, p=0,026, AUC 0.655) and infusion volume >43 ml/kg per day (OR 1.0313, 95 % CI 1.0073–1.0558, p=0.01, AUC 0.677) were predictors of survival in patients with abdominal sepsis. The use of TPTD compared to patients of group II was accompanied by an increase in the daily infusion volume (53.7 [38.1–63.5] vs 38.2 [29.9–47.2], ml/kg per day, p = 0.0001), more frequent use of inotropic drugs (39.4 vs 16.4 %, p = 0.004), and higher level of the inotropic scale (0 [0–4.7] vs 0 [0–0], p = 0.01). There were no differences in the frequency of prescription (57.7 vs 65.5 %, p = 0.376) and dosages (0.2 [0.1–0.4] vs 0.3 [0.2–0.4] μg/kg/min, p = 0.554) of norepinephrine. Twenty-eight-day mortality in groups I and II was 31 and 50.8 % (p = 0.022), hospital mortality was 32.9 and 54.0 % (p = 0.014).Conclusion. When assessed by SOFA > 7 points and lactatemia > 1.6 mmol/L, the onset of TPTD and infusion volume > 43 mL/kg/day increase the likelihood of survival of patients with abdominal sepsis, as a result, 28-day and hospital mortality decrease by 1.6 times. The use of invasive monitoring of central hemodynamics in this clinical situation is accompanied by an increase in the prescription of inotropes by 2.4 times with an unchanged intensity of norepinephrine use. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有创血液动力学监测在脓毒症重症监护中的作用
目的是研究早期有计划地使用经肺热稀释(TPTD)和稳定血液循环的治疗措施对脓毒症临床结局的影响。这项队列研究涉及 132 名 SOFA >7 和血乳酸 >1.6 mmol/L 的腹腔败血症患者。56%的患者被诊断为脓毒性休克。53.8%的患者在重症监护早期开始出现TPTD。数据处理采用了逻辑回归和ROC分析法。早期使用有创监测(OR 2,3715,95 % CI 1,1107-5,0635,p=0,026,AUC 0.655)和输液量大于每天 43 毫升/千克(OR 1.0313,95 % CI 1.0073-1.0558,p=0.01,AUC 0.677)是腹腔败血症患者生存的预测因素。与第二组患者相比,使用 TPTD 的患者每日输液量增加(53.7 [38.1-63.5] vs 38.2 [29.9-47.2], ml/kg per day, p = 0.0001),使用肌力药物的频率更高(39.4 vs 16.4 %, p = 0.004),肌力评分水平更高(0 [0-4.7] vs 0 [0-0], p = 0.01)。去甲肾上腺素的处方频率(57.7 % vs 65.5 %,p = 0.376)和剂量(0.2 [0.1-0.4] vs 0.3 [0.2-0.4] μg/kg/min,p = 0.554)没有差异。第一组和第二组的二十八天死亡率分别为31%和50.8%(p = 0.022),住院死亡率分别为32.9%和54.0%(p = 0.014)。通过 SOFA > 7 分和乳酸血症 > 1.6 mmol/L 评估,TPTD 开始和输液量 > 43 mL/kg/天会增加腹腔败血症患者的生存几率,因此,28 天死亡率和住院死亡率降低了 1.6 倍。在这种临床情况下使用有创中枢血流动力学监测的同时,肌注药物的处方量增加了 2.4 倍,而去甲肾上腺素的使用强度保持不变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kidney autotransplantation with renal arteries injury in a patient with Takayasu arteritis Osteopoikilia in the practice of a rheumatologist Современные маркеры диагностики сочетания анкилозирующего спондилита и воспалительных заболеваний кишечника Onset of Rheumatoid Arthritis with eye manifestations (clinical case report) Peculiarities of laboratory parameters dynamics during helicobacter pylori eradication in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1