4.4 Article

Measurement of lactate in a prehospital setting is related to outcome

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 318-322

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32832dbe54

关键词

early diagnosis; lactic acid; prehospital emergency care; regional health planning; shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective We evaluated the relationship of lactate measured in a preclinical setting with outcome. Simultaneously, we evaluated the feasibility of implementing blood lactate measurement in a prehospital setting as part of a quality improvement project Methods Chart review of patients from whom serum lactate levels prospectively were obtained in a prehospital setting. Total population was divided into two groups, that is, a shock group and a non-shock group according to the predefined shock symptoms. The shock group was divided into two groups, that is, a lactate less than 4 mmol/l (subgroup 1) and a lactate of at least 4 mmol/l (subgroup 11). Results In about 50% of possible cases, lactate was measured in the prehospital setting. Median lactate in subgroup I (n=74) was 3.2 (1.5-3.9) mmol/l versus 5.0 (4.0-20.0) mmol/l in subgroup I I (n = 61) (P<0.0001). Significant differences were found in length of stay in intensive care unit (P=0.03) or hospital (P=0.04) and mortality (subgroup 1 12.2% vs. subgroup 11 44.3%; P=0.002). In normotensive shock patients showing a lactate of at least 4 mmol/l (n = 27), the mortality was higher compared with normotensive shock patients with a lactate less than 4 mmol/l (n = 31) (35 vs. 7%; P<0.001). Conclusion Implementation of lactate measurement in prehospital setting is feasible, and potentially clinical relevant. Lactate measured in a preclinical setting is related to outcome. Subsequent studies should evaluate whether treatment of shock patient Is based on prehospital lactate measurement will improve outcome. European Journal of Emergency Medicine 16:318-322 (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.4
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