Influence of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapies on the hemodynamic parameters of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY BMC Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1186/s12871-024-02838-6
Huda F Ghazaly, Ahmed Alsaied A Aly, Ahmed S Tammam, Mahmoud M Hassan, Soudy S Hammad, Naggeh M Mahmoud, Tarek S Hemaida
{"title":"Influence of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapies on the hemodynamic parameters of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Huda F Ghazaly, Ahmed Alsaied A Aly, Ahmed S Tammam, Mahmoud M Hassan, Soudy S Hammad, Naggeh M Mahmoud, Tarek S Hemaida","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02838-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no significant evidence verifying the efficacy of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy on hemodynamics in patients with sepsis. We investigated how liberal and conservative oxygen therapy influenced stroke volume, cardiac output, and vasopressor needs in patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized clinical trial included 106 patients with an admission diagnosis of infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of two points or higher and required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 h. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two oxygenation strategies: liberal (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of ≥ 96% or conservative (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of 88-92%. Transthoracic Doppler echocardiography was done twice to measure stroke volume and cardiac output, initially upon enrollment in the trial and then 72 h later. The primary outcome was stroke volume. Secondary outcomes were cardiac output, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Stroke volume and cardiac output measurements did not differ significantly between research groups after 72 h of oxygenation treatment (p = 0.459 and 0.637, respectively). Forty-five patients (84.9%) in the conservative oxygen therapy group needed vasopressors to maintain their mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg, whereas 35 patients (66.0%) in the liberal group did (p = 0.024). A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the independent variables for vasopressor requirements revealed that patients in the conservative oxygen group were 3.83 times more likely to require vasopressors (AOR = 3.83, 95% CI: 1.31-11.18, p = 0.014) than those in the liberal group. Older patients (AOR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07, p = 0.038) and those with higher SOFA scores (AOR = 1.36, CI: 1.09-1.68, P = 0.005) were significantly more likely to need vasopressors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy did not influence stroke volume or cardiac output measurements in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Patients in the conservative oxygen group were more likely to require vasopressors than those in the liberal group.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aswan University Hospital (approval number: Aswu/460/5/20) (registration date: 05/05/2020) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04824703) (03/30/2021).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"24 1","pages":"469"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02838-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is no significant evidence verifying the efficacy of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy on hemodynamics in patients with sepsis. We investigated how liberal and conservative oxygen therapy influenced stroke volume, cardiac output, and vasopressor needs in patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 106 patients with an admission diagnosis of infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of two points or higher and required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 h. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two oxygenation strategies: liberal (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of ≥ 96% or conservative (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of 88-92%. Transthoracic Doppler echocardiography was done twice to measure stroke volume and cardiac output, initially upon enrollment in the trial and then 72 h later. The primary outcome was stroke volume. Secondary outcomes were cardiac output, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and adverse events.

Results: Stroke volume and cardiac output measurements did not differ significantly between research groups after 72 h of oxygenation treatment (p = 0.459 and 0.637, respectively). Forty-five patients (84.9%) in the conservative oxygen therapy group needed vasopressors to maintain their mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg, whereas 35 patients (66.0%) in the liberal group did (p = 0.024). A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the independent variables for vasopressor requirements revealed that patients in the conservative oxygen group were 3.83 times more likely to require vasopressors (AOR = 3.83, 95% CI: 1.31-11.18, p = 0.014) than those in the liberal group. Older patients (AOR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07, p = 0.038) and those with higher SOFA scores (AOR = 1.36, CI: 1.09-1.68, P = 0.005) were significantly more likely to need vasopressors.

Conclusions: Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy did not influence stroke volume or cardiac output measurements in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Patients in the conservative oxygen group were more likely to require vasopressors than those in the liberal group.

Trial registration: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aswan University Hospital (approval number: Aswu/460/5/20) (registration date: 05/05/2020) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04824703) (03/30/2021).

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
期刊最新文献
Inhibitory effect of low-dose esketamine on cough induced by sufentanil during the induction of anesthesia and postoperative impact on mental health status: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial. Anesthetic anaphylactic shock in an emergency cesarean section: a case report. Incidence and factors associated with postoperative hemodynamic change in the postanaesthetic care unit among adult surgical patients at a tertiary care hospital in Ethiopia: a prospective observational study. Influence of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapies on the hemodynamic parameters of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized clinical trial. Clinical significance of lactate-to-albumin ratio in patients with influenza A virus-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center retrospective study.
×
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