Cardiac Output assessed via Esophageal Doppler Monitoring Fails to Predict Changes in Renal Microvascular Perfusion

D. Read, B. Doleman, John P. Williams
{"title":"Cardiac Output assessed via Esophageal Doppler Monitoring Fails to Predict Changes in Renal Microvascular Perfusion","authors":"D. Read, B. Doleman, John P. Williams","doi":"10.33552/asoaj.2019.01.000510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ASOAJ.MS.ID.000510. Abstract Background: Vasoactive drugs are routinely used clinically to alter mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO) and to maintain organ perfusion. However, the effect of such drugs on microvascular visceral blood flow (MiBF) is not fully understood. We aimed to track changes in renal MiBF, using the well-validated technique of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS), across a range of MAP and CO generated via the vasoactive drugs, phenylephrine and ephedrine. Methods: Baseline cardiovascular measurements were recorded, with renal MiBF determined via CEUS as renal microvascular transit time (RTT). Phenylephrine was then administered, via a standardized protocol, to increase MAP and CO, with repeat CEUS. Following return to baseline, the above was repeated using ephedrine. CEUS time-intensity curves were constructed and renal MiBF calculated. Results: In 11 male volunteers (median age 32), phenylephrine increased MAP (98.7 vs 110.8 mmHg, p<0.001), but not CO (4211 vs. 4089 ml.min-1, p=0.42), while ephedrine increased CO (4110 vs 6097, p<0.001) and MAP (95.6 vs 100.9, p=0.02). Phenylephrine reduced time to organ perfusion (TTOP) (22.3 vs 18.4 secs, p=0.009), but not RTT (14 vs 13.2 secs, p=0.46). Ephedrine decreased TTOP (21.1 vs 14.7 secs, p=0.003), and RTT (3.5 vs 9.6 secs, p=0.007). Change in CO predicted change in TTOP (r2=0.26, p=0.02), but not RTT (r2=0.04, p=0.43). Change in MAP did not predict change in TTOP (r2=0.02, p=0.58), or RTT (r2<0.001, p=0.89). Conclusion: Changes in MAP and CO fail to predict renal MiBF.","PeriodicalId":92982,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia & surgery open access journal","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia & surgery open access journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33552/asoaj.2019.01.000510","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

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ASOAJ.MS.ID.000510. Abstract Background: Vasoactive drugs are routinely used clinically to alter mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO) and to maintain organ perfusion. However, the effect of such drugs on microvascular visceral blood flow (MiBF) is not fully understood. We aimed to track changes in renal MiBF, using the well-validated technique of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS), across a range of MAP and CO generated via the vasoactive drugs, phenylephrine and ephedrine. Methods: Baseline cardiovascular measurements were recorded, with renal MiBF determined via CEUS as renal microvascular transit time (RTT). Phenylephrine was then administered, via a standardized protocol, to increase MAP and CO, with repeat CEUS. Following return to baseline, the above was repeated using ephedrine. CEUS time-intensity curves were constructed and renal MiBF calculated. Results: In 11 male volunteers (median age 32), phenylephrine increased MAP (98.7 vs 110.8 mmHg, p<0.001), but not CO (4211 vs. 4089 ml.min-1, p=0.42), while ephedrine increased CO (4110 vs 6097, p<0.001) and MAP (95.6 vs 100.9, p=0.02). Phenylephrine reduced time to organ perfusion (TTOP) (22.3 vs 18.4 secs, p=0.009), but not RTT (14 vs 13.2 secs, p=0.46). Ephedrine decreased TTOP (21.1 vs 14.7 secs, p=0.003), and RTT (3.5 vs 9.6 secs, p=0.007). Change in CO predicted change in TTOP (r2=0.26, p=0.02), but not RTT (r2=0.04, p=0.43). Change in MAP did not predict change in TTOP (r2=0.02, p=0.58), or RTT (r2<0.001, p=0.89). Conclusion: Changes in MAP and CO fail to predict renal MiBF.
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
通过食管多普勒监测评估心输出量不能预测肾微血管灌注的变化
本作品采用知识共享署名4.0许可协议ASOAJ.MS.ID.000510。背景:血管活性药物在临床上常用来改变平均动脉血压(MAP)和心输出量(CO),维持器官灌注。然而,这些药物对微血管内脏血流(MiBF)的影响尚不完全清楚。我们的目的是通过血管活性药物苯肾上腺素和麻黄碱产生的MAP和CO,使用经过验证的对比增强超声(CEUS)技术跟踪肾脏MiBF的变化。方法:记录基线心血管测量,通过超声造影(CEUS)测定肾脏MiBF作为肾脏微血管传递时间(RTT)。然后通过标准化方案给予苯肾上腺素,以增加MAP和CO,并重复超声心动图。回到基线后,使用麻黄碱重复上述试验。构建超声造影时间-强度曲线,计算肾脏MiBF。结果:在11名男性志愿者(中位年龄32岁)中,苯肾上腺素增加了MAP (98.7 vs 110.8 mmHg, p<0.001),但没有增加CO (4211 vs 4089 ml.min-1, p=0.42),而麻黄碱增加了CO (4110 vs 6097, p<0.001)和MAP (95.6 vs 100.9, p=0.02)。苯肾上腺素缩短了器官灌注时间(TTOP) (22.3 vs 18.4秒,p=0.009),但没有缩短RTT (14 vs 13.2秒,p=0.46)。麻黄碱降低TTOP (21.1 vs 14.7秒,p=0.003)和RTT (3.5 vs 9.6秒,p=0.007)。CO的变化可预测TTOP的变化(r2=0.26, p=0.02),但不能预测RTT的变化(r2=0.04, p=0.43)。MAP的变化不能预测TTOP (r2=0.02, p=0.58)或RTT的变化(r2<0.001, p=0.89)。结论:MAP和CO的变化不能预测肾脏MiBF。
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
Endoscopic Endotracheal Intubation for ERCP In the Era of COVID: An Approach To Minimize Risk of Transmission of Infectious Diseases Saphenous Nerve Block to the Adductor Canal and IPACK Block In Analgesic Management of Knee Replacements: Our Experience Intralesional Bleomycin Sclerotherapy in Children with Lymphangiomas: A Review Article Consideration of Nebulized Lidocaine For Treatment of Covid19 Severity Via Targeting Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Cecal Volvulus Caused by an Omphalo-Mesenteric Band: A Case Report of a Rare Complication of Meckel’s Diverticulum
×
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