4.5 Article

Central venous pressure and shock index predict lack of hemodynamic response to volume expansion in septic shock: A prospective, observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 609-615

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.021

关键词

Sepsis; Fluid; Shock index; Central venous pressure

资金

  1. Easton Family Fund
  2. Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [K23GM094465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Volume expansion is a common therapeutic intervention in septic shock, although patient response to the intervention is difficult to predict. Central venous pressure (CVP) and shock index have been used independently to guide volume expansion, although their use is questionable. We hypothesize that a combination of these measurements will be useful. Methods: In a prospective, observational study, patients with early septic shock received 10-mL/kg volume expansion at their treating physician's discretion after brief initial resuscitation in the emergency department. Central venous pressure and shock index were measured before volume expansion interventions. Cardiac index was measured immediately before and after the volume expansion using transthoracic echocardiography. Hemodynamic response was defined as an increase in a cardiac index of 15% or greater. Results: Thirty-four volume expansions were observed in 25 patients. A CVP of 8 mm Hg or greater and a shock index of 1 beat min(-1) mm Hg-1 or less individually had a good negative predictive value (83% and 88%, respectively). Of 34 volume expansions, the combination of both a high CVP and a low shock index was extremely unlikely to elicit hemodynamic response (negative predictive value, 93%; P = .02). Conclusions: Volume expansion in patients with early septic shock with a CVP of 8 mm Hg or greater and a shock index of 1 beat min(-1) mm Hg-1 or less is unlikely to lead to an increase in cardiac index. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据