Literature DB >> 23084132

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

Michael J Lanspa1, Samuel M Brown, Eliotte L Hirshberg, Jason P Jones, Colin K Grissom.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23084132      PMCID: PMC3621131          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Crit Care        ISSN: 0883-9441            Impact factor:   3.425


  27 in total

1.  Clinical prediction of fluid responsiveness in acute circulatory failure related to sepsis.

Authors:  F Michard; L Ruscio; J L Teboul
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury.

Authors:  Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Estimation of cardiac output by noninvasive echocardiographic techniques in the critically ill subject.

Authors:  A S McLean; A Needham; D Stewart; R Parkin
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.669

4.  Reliability of clinical monitoring to assess blood volume in critically ill patients.

Authors:  C R Shippy; P L Appel; W C Shoemaker
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge.

Authors:  David Osman; Christophe Ridel; Patrick Ray; Xavier Monnet; Nadia Anguel; Christian Richard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Assessing fluid responsiveness by stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis.

Authors:  G Marx; T Cope; L McCrossan; S Swaraj; C Cowan; S M Mostafa; R Wenstone; M Leuwer
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 7.  Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares.

Authors:  Paul E Marik; Michael Baram; Bobbak Vahid
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 9.410

8.  Shock index: a re-evaluation in acute circulatory failure.

Authors:  M Y Rady; P Nightingale; R A Little; J D Edwards
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  1992 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 5.262

9.  Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients.

Authors:  Christophe Barbier; Yann Loubières; Christophe Schmit; Jan Hayon; Jean-Louis Ricôme; François Jardin; Antoine Vieillard-Baron
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-03-18       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  A survey of Canadian intensivists' resuscitation practices in early septic shock.

Authors:  Lauralyn A McIntyre; Paul C Hébert; Dean Fergusson; Deborah J Cook; Ashique Aziz
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  12 in total

1.  Esmolol in septic shock: old pathophysiological concepts, an old drug, perhaps a new hemodynamic strategy in the right patient.

Authors:  Andrea Morelli; Filippo Sanfilippo; Salvatore Mario Romano
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Wesley H Self; Matthew W Semler; Rinaldo Bellomo; Samuel M Brown; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Matthew C Exline; Adit A Ginde; Colin K Grissom; David R Janz; Alan E Jones; Kathleen D Liu; Stephen P J Macdonald; Chadwick D Miller; Pauline K Park; Lora A Reineck; Todd W Rice; Jay S Steingrub; Daniel Talmor; Donald M Yealy; Ivor S Douglas; Nathan I Shapiro
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 3.  Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  T G Eskesen; M Wetterslev; A Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 4.  Physiological changes after fluid bolus therapy in sepsis: a systematic review of contemporary data.

Authors:  Neil J Glassford; Glenn M Eastwood; Rinaldo Bellomo
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-12-27       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 5.  Intravascular volume therapy in adults: Guidelines from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany.

Authors:  Gernot Marx; Achim W Schindler; Christoph Mosch; Joerg Albers; Michael Bauer; Irmela Gnass; Carsten Hobohm; Uwe Janssens; Stefan Kluge; Peter Kranke; Tobias Maurer; Waltraut Merz; Edmund Neugebauer; Michael Quintel; Norbert Senninger; Hans-Joachim Trampisch; Christian Waydhas; Rene Wildenauer; Kai Zacharowski; Michaela Eikermann
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 6.  What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Toscani; Hollmann D Aya; Dimitra Antonakaki; Davide Bastoni; Ximena Watson; Nish Arulkumaran; Andrew Rhodes; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Associations among left ventricular systolic function, tachycardia, and cardiac preload in septic patients.

Authors:  Michael J Lanspa; Sajid Shahul; Andrew Hersh; Emily L Wilson; Troy D Olsen; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Colin K Grissom; Samuel M Brown
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 6.925

8.  Shock index in the emergency department: utility and limitations.

Authors:  Erica Koch; Shannon Lovett; Trac Nghiem; Robert A Riggs; Megan A Rech
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2019-08-14

9.  The use of the shock index to predict hemodynamic collapse in hypotensive sepsis patients: A cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Zohair Al Aseri; Mohammed Al Ageel; Mohammed Binkharfi
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2020-03-05

10.  Stroke Volume Variation and Stroke Volume Index Can Predict Fluid Responsiveness after Mini-Volume Challenge Test in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Eun-Jin Moon; Seunghwan Lee; Jae-Woo Yi; Ju Hyun Kim; Bong-Jae Lee; Hyungseok Seo
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.