超声心动图引导下成人严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的血流动力学管理:一项随机对照试验

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care Pub Date : 2020-03-17 DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-17392/v1
Walid S. Alhabashy, O. M. Shalaby, A. Elgebaly, M. Ghafar
{"title":"超声心动图引导下成人严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的血流动力学管理:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Walid S. Alhabashy, O. M. Shalaby, A. Elgebaly, M. Ghafar","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-17392/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: Echocardiography (ECHO) is used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. Therefore, we compared the outcome of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) and ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics in severe sepsis and septic shock. Materials and Methods: This is a single center, randomized controlled trial conducted on 100 adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were assessed and treated with either EGDT protocol (EGDT group) or ECHO-guided resuscitation protocol (ECHO group). Results: Only 87 patients (45 in group I and 42 in group II) were analyzed. There was a significant increase of mean norepinephrine and dobutamine doses and a significant decrease in total fluids in the first 24 hours, time to normalization, time to weaning of vasopressors, total MV days, MV free days and ICU and hospital stays in ECHO group. At 30 days, the mortality rate in EGDT group was 35.6% which was significantly higher compared to 14.3% in ECHO group. At 90 days, the overall mortality was significantly higher in EGDT group compared to Echo group (40.0% vs 16.7% respectively). Hazardous ratio of mortality was 1.630 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.123 - 2.366) and 1.653 (95% CI: 1.137 - 2.404) at 30 and 90 days respectively in EGDT group compared to ECHO group. Conclusions: In severe sepsis and septic shock, ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics resulted in a decrease in mortality, lower total fluid intake, higher vasopressor and inotrope support, earlier weaning of vasopressors and less MV days, ICU and hospital stay.","PeriodicalId":7735,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Echocardiography-Guided Hemodynamic Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Walid S. Alhabashy, O. M. Shalaby, A. Elgebaly, M. Ghafar\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-17392/v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background: Echocardiography (ECHO) is used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. Therefore, we compared the outcome of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) and ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics in severe sepsis and septic shock. Materials and Methods: This is a single center, randomized controlled trial conducted on 100 adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were assessed and treated with either EGDT protocol (EGDT group) or ECHO-guided resuscitation protocol (ECHO group). Results: Only 87 patients (45 in group I and 42 in group II) were analyzed. There was a significant increase of mean norepinephrine and dobutamine doses and a significant decrease in total fluids in the first 24 hours, time to normalization, time to weaning of vasopressors, total MV days, MV free days and ICU and hospital stays in ECHO group. At 30 days, the mortality rate in EGDT group was 35.6% which was significantly higher compared to 14.3% in ECHO group. At 90 days, the overall mortality was significantly higher in EGDT group compared to Echo group (40.0% vs 16.7% respectively). Hazardous ratio of mortality was 1.630 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.123 - 2.366) and 1.653 (95% CI: 1.137 - 2.404) at 30 and 90 days respectively in EGDT group compared to ECHO group. Conclusions: In severe sepsis and septic shock, ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics resulted in a decrease in mortality, lower total fluid intake, higher vasopressor and inotrope support, earlier weaning of vasopressors and less MV days, ICU and hospital stay.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-17392/v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-17392/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:超声心动图(ECHO)用于指导感染性休克复苏,但没有疗效证据。因此,我们比较了早期目标导向治疗(EGDT)和ECHO指导的严重败血症和感染性休克血液动力学管理的结果。材料和方法:这是一项针对100名患有严重败血症或感染性休克的成年患者的单中心随机对照试验。采用EGDT方案(EGDT组)或ECHO引导复苏方案(ECHO组)对患者进行评估和治疗。结果:仅对87例患者(Ⅰ组45例,Ⅱ组42例)进行了分析。ECHO组的平均去甲肾上腺素和多巴酚丁胺剂量在前24小时、正常化时间、血管升压药停用时间、总MV天数、无MV天数、ICU和住院时间显著增加,总液体显著减少。30天时,EGDT组的死亡率为35.6%,显著高于ECHO组的14.3%。90天时,EGDT组的总死亡率显著高于Echo组(分别为40.0%和16.7%)。与ECHO组相比,EGDT组在第30天和第90天的死亡率危险比分别为1.630(95%置信区间(CI):1.123-2.366)和1.653(95%可信区间:1.137-2.404)。结论:在严重败血症和感染性休克中,ECHO指导下的血液动力学管理可降低死亡率,降低总液体摄入量,增加血管升压药和止疼药支持,提前停用血管升压药,减少MV天数、ICU和住院时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Echocardiography-Guided Hemodynamic Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Background: Echocardiography (ECHO) is used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. Therefore, we compared the outcome of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) and ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics in severe sepsis and septic shock. Materials and Methods: This is a single center, randomized controlled trial conducted on 100 adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were assessed and treated with either EGDT protocol (EGDT group) or ECHO-guided resuscitation protocol (ECHO group). Results: Only 87 patients (45 in group I and 42 in group II) were analyzed. There was a significant increase of mean norepinephrine and dobutamine doses and a significant decrease in total fluids in the first 24 hours, time to normalization, time to weaning of vasopressors, total MV days, MV free days and ICU and hospital stays in ECHO group. At 30 days, the mortality rate in EGDT group was 35.6% which was significantly higher compared to 14.3% in ECHO group. At 90 days, the overall mortality was significantly higher in EGDT group compared to Echo group (40.0% vs 16.7% respectively). Hazardous ratio of mortality was 1.630 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.123 - 2.366) and 1.653 (95% CI: 1.137 - 2.404) at 30 and 90 days respectively in EGDT group compared to ECHO group. Conclusions: In severe sepsis and septic shock, ECHO-guided management of hemodynamics resulted in a decrease in mortality, lower total fluid intake, higher vasopressor and inotrope support, earlier weaning of vasopressors and less MV days, ICU and hospital stay.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
NSAIDs in COVID-19, friend or foe? Post cervical spine surgery hyperpyrexia (108?F) in a patient with COVID-19: a case report Extreme physical exhaustion leading to hypokalemic periodic paralysis- a case report Difficult airway management in Apert syndrome for maxillofacial reconstruction: a case report Anesthesia without opioids
×
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