| Literature DB >> 23509621 |
Abele Donati1, Roberta Domizi, Elisa Damiani, Erica Adrario, Paolo Pelaia, Can Ince.
Abstract
ICU patients need a prompt normalization of macrohemodynamic parameters. Unfortunately, this optimization sometimes does not protect patients from organ failure development. Prevention or treatment of organ failure needs another target to be pursued: the microcirculatory restoration. Microcirculation is the ensemble of vessels of maximum 100 μm in diameter. Nowadays the Sidestream Dark Field (SDF) imaging technique allows its bedside investigation and a recent round-table conference established the criteria for its evaluation. First, microcirculatory derangements have been studied in sepsis: they are mainly characterized by a reduction of vessel density, an alteration of flow, and a heterogeneous distribution of perfusion. Endothelial malfunction and glycocalyx rupture were proved to be the main reasons for the observed microthrombi, capillary leakage, leukocyte rolling, and rouleaux phenomenon, even if further studies are necessary for a better explanation. Therapeutic approaches targeting microcirculation are under investigation. Microcirculatory alterations have been recently demonstrated in other diseases such as hypovolemia and cardiac failure but this issue still needs to be explored. The aim of this paper is to gather the already known information, focus the reader's attention on the importance of microvascular physiopathology in critical illness, and prompt him to actively participate to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23509621 PMCID: PMC3600213 DOI: 10.1155/2013/892710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care Res Pract ISSN: 2090-1305
Figure 1SDF images of the sublingual microcirculation. (a) Healthy subject; (b) septic shock; (c) hypovolemia; (d) cardiogenic shock.
Parameters for the evaluation and scoring of the microcirculation.
| Microcirculation parameter | Information provided | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Microvascular flow index (MFI) | Perfusion quality (for small, medium, and large vessels*) | The image is divided into four quadrants; a number is assigned for each quadrant according to the predominant type of flow (0 = no flow; 1 = intermittent; 2 = sluggish; 3 = continuous). The MFI results from the averaged values. |
|
| ||
| De Backer score (n/mm) | Vessel density | The image is divided by 3 vertical and 3 horizontal lines; the De Backer score is calculated as the number of vessels crossing the lines divided by the total length of the lines |
|
| ||
| Total vessel density (mm/mm2) | Vessel density (for small, medium, and large vessels*) | Total length of vessels is divided by the total surface of the analyzed area |
|
| ||
| Perfused vessel density (mm/mm2) | Functional vessel density (for small, medium, and large vessels*) | Total length of perfused vessels (sluggish or continuous) is divided by the total surface of the analyzed area |
|
| ||
| Proportion of perfused vessels (%) | Perfusion quality (for small, medium, and large vessels*) | 100* number of perfused vessels is divided by the total number of vessels |
|
| ||
| Flow heterogeneity index (FHI) | Perfusion heterogeneity | The difference between the highest MFI and the lowest MFI is divided by the mean MFI. MFI is intended as the averaged MFI of each site |
*Vessel diameter classification: <20 μ = small; 20–50 μ = medium; 50–100 μ = large.
Three or five sites are evaluated. MFI of small vessels can be calculated separately.
Figure 2Sequence of SDF images of the sublingual microcirculation in a septic patient, showing the passage of a rolling leukocyte in a postcapillary venule.