4.2 Article

Increasing cardiac output by epinephrine after cardiac surgery: Effects on indocyanine green plasma disappearance rate and splanchnic microcirculation

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2006.02.031

关键词

cardiac surgery; inotropes; liver function; splanchnic microcirculation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The effects of increasing cardiac output by epinephrine on inclocyanine green plasma disappearance rate (ICG-PDR) and gastric mucosal PCO2 (PRCO2) were studied as indicators of splanchnic microcirculation. Design: A prospective clinical study. Setting: Intensive care unit of a university hospital. Participants: With ethics approval and written consent, 12 elective cardiac surgical patients (5 female, 7 male, 71 +/- 8 years) were studied. Interventions: Patients underwent pulmonary artery and left atrial catheterization for clinical indications. Measurements were made at intensive care unit admission and 1 hour after (increased) epinephrine treatment. Mean epinephrine dose was changed from 0.02 to 0.08 mu g/kg/min. Results: Heart rate significantly increased from 97 +/- 11 to 106 +/- 12 beat/min. Central venous (10 +/- 3 v 10 4 mmHg) and left atrial (10 +/- 5 v 11 +/- 5 mmHg) pressures were unchanged. Cardiac index and stroke volume index significantly increased from 2.7 +/- 0.5 to 3.2 +/- 0.5 L/min/m(2) and from 28 +/- 6 to 31 +/- 5 mL/m(2), respectively. Although systemic O-2 delivery and O-2 consumption significantly increased, ICG-PDR did not change significantly (ie, from 18.0% +/- 5.6% to 19.5% +/- 6.4% per minute). PRCO2 and PCO2 gap (difference between regional and end-tidal PCO2) significantly increased from 5.4 +/- 1.0 to 5.9 +/- 1.1 kPa and 1.2 +/- 0.8 to 1.5 +/- 0.7 kPa, respectively. Conclusion: Increasing cardiac output by epinephrine in patients after cardiac surgery was not associated with a change in flow-dependent liver function but a deterioration in gastric mucosal perfusion. (c) 2007 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

4.2
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