| Literature DB >> 27391370 |
Guillaume Debaty1,2, Maxime Maignan3, Bertrand Perrin4, Angélique Brouta4, Dorra Guergour5, Candice Trocme5, Vincent Bach6, Stéphane Tanguy4, Raphaël Briot3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess cardiac and pulmonary pathophysiological responses during cooling and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) rewarming in a porcine model of deep hypothermic cardiac arrest (DHCA). In addition, we evaluated whether providing a lower flow rate of ECLS during the rewarming phase might attenuate cardiopulmonary injuries.Entities:
Keywords: Accidental hypothermia; Cardiac arrest; Deep hypothermic cardiac arrest; Extracorporeal life support
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27391370 PMCID: PMC4939029 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-016-0283-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Fig. 1Different phases of the study protocol. ROSC: return of spontaneous circulation, ECLS: extracorporeal life support. * Settings of the ECLS were randomized into two groups: LF, low blood flow rate of 1.5 L/min; NF, normal blood flow rate of 3 L/min. The temperature in the extracorporeal circuit was adjusted to 5 °C above the central core temperature in both groups
Fig. 2Representative arterial and pulmonary pressure measurement over time during the cooling phase
Characteristics according to randomization group during the cooling and ECLS rewarming phase
| Cooling phase | ECLS rewarming phase | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 32 | 30 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | ||
| LF group | HR, beats/min | 100 ± 5 | 84 ± 9 | 70 ± 5 | 55 ± 4 | 29 ± 9 | 88 ± 15 | 124 ± 6 | ||
| AP, mmHg | 72 ± 7 | 70 ± 4 | 44 ± 4 | 29 ± 2 | 19 ± 4 | 27 ± 3* | 35 ± 3* | 70 ± 9 | 63 ± 8 | |
| PAP, mmHg | 20 ± 2 | 28 ± 7 | 24 ± 3 | 19 ± 3 | 13 ± 2 | 8 ± 1 | 11 ± 2 | 19 ± 3 | 33 ± 3 | |
| PVR, dyn · s · cm−5 | 234 ± 50 | 487 ± 132 | 515 ± 139 | 800 ± 419 | 951 ± 229 | |||||
| EtCO2, mmHg | 42 ± 4 | 27 ± 1 | 29 ± 1.3 | 24 ± 2 | 23 ± 1 | 11 ± 2 | 5 ± 1 | 16 ± 3 | 33 ± 3 | |
| CO, L/min | 4.4 ± .4 | 3.3 ± .4 | 2.8 ± .3 | 2.3 ± .5 | 1.4 ± .3& | 2.7 ± .5 | ||||
| pH | 7.40 ± .02 | 7.43 ± .02 | 7.39 ± .03 | 7.35 ± .04 | 7.18 ± .02 | 7.28 ± .04 | 7.36 ± .06 | 7.35 ± .05 | 7.38 ± .04 | |
| PO2/FiO2, mmHg | 449 ± 40 | 598 ± 69 | 547 ± 68 | 549 ± 74 | 523 ± 191 | 386 ± 78 | 934 ± 145 | 480 ± 118 | 398 ± 123 | |
| PCO2, mmHg | 51 ± 3 | 40 ± 2 | 46 ± 3 | 49 ± 5 | 56 ± 10 | 54 ± 6 | 47 ± 6 | 43 ± 5 | 37 ± 3 | |
| Serum lactate, mmol/L | 2.09 ± .21 | 7.66 ± 1.55 | 5.44 ± .54* | |||||||
| Serum potassium, mmol/L | 3.87 ± .15 | 3.97 ± .13 | 3.77 ± .17 | |||||||
| NF group | HR, beats/min | 107 ± 9 | 80 ± 6 | 68 ± 6 | 51 ± 5 | 25 ± 10 | 91 ± 9 | 138 ± 9 | ||
| AP, mmHg | 68 ± 3 | 66 ± 5 | 46 ± 5 | 28 ± 3 | 20 ± 1 | 41 ± 3* | 48 ± 3* | 64 ± 6 | 74 ± 7 | |
| PAP, mmHg | 21 ± 3 | 32 ± 15 | 20 ± 2 | 16 ± 2 | 15 ± 6 | 11 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 | 18 ± 3 | 29 ± 3 | |
| PVR, dyn · s · cm−5 | 287 ± 55 | 461 ± 54 | 453 ± 121 | 480 ± 208 | 499 ± 93 | |||||
| EtCO2, mmHg | 42 ± 4 | 25 ± 4 | 26 ± 2 | 22 ± 2 | 19 ± 3 | 11 ± 2 | 7 ± 2 | 12 ± 3 | 30 ± 4 | |
| CO, L/min | 4.4 ± .4 | 3.0 ± .4 | 2.5 ± .2 | 1.9 ± .1 | 1.7 ± .6& | 3.9 ± .5 | ||||
| pH | 7.40 ± .02 | 7.45 ± .14 | 7.41 ± .04 | 7.38 ± .03 | 7.34 ± .01 | 7.33 ± .03 | 7.27 ± .03 | 7.37 ± .03 | 7.39 ± .03 | |
| PO2/FiO2, mmHg | 433 ± 52 | 514 ± 164 | 574 ± 51 | 684 ± 85 | 369 ± 45 | 344 ± 35 | 783 ± 158 | 755 ± 103 | 382 ± 59 | |
| PCO2, mmHg | 49 ± 3 | 43 ± 16 | 43 ± 4 | 46 ± 3 | 48 ± 3 | 52 ± 5 | 51 ± 3 | 38 ± 3 | 33 ± 3 | |
| Serum lactate, mmol/L | 2.27 ± .20 | 5.30 ± .86 | 3.91 ± .50* | |||||||
| Serum potassium, mmol/L | 3.96 ± .08 | 3.99 ± .16 | 3.76 ± .17 | |||||||
Groups: LF/low blood flow rate of 1.5 L/min; NF/normal blood flow rate of 3 L/min. PaO /FiO arterial oxygen pressure/inspired oxygen fraction, ABP arterial blood pressure, PAP pulmonary arterial pressure, PVR pulmonary vascular resistance. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. & measured only on 6 pigs in each group that achieved ROSC at this time point. * p < 0.05 compared with the other group
Fig. 3a Bland-Altman plot, difference vs. the average right cardiac output measured by thermodilution compared to the Doppler echocardiography method (L/min), b Correlation between right cardiac output measured by the thermodilution and the Doppler echocardiography method. CO, cardiac output, r, Pearson correlation coefficient
Hemodynamic parameters with or without ECLS at 30 °C during the cooling phase and at 35 °C at the end of the rewarming phase
| 35 °C ECLS 3 L/min | 35 °C ECLS 1.5 L/min | 35 °C ECLS 1 L/min | 35 °C no ECLS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF group | HR, beats/min | 121 ± 3 | 117 ± 4 | 124 ± 6 | |
| AP, mmHg | 64 ± 3* | 69 ± 4 | 63 ± 8 | ||
| PAP, mmHg | 31 ± 6 | 35 ± 4 | 33 ± 3 | ||
| PVR, dyn · s · cm−5 | 612 ± 65 | 1268 ± 648 | 922 ± 411 | ||
| EtCO2, mmHg | 27 ± 7 | 31 ± 5 | 33 ± 3 | ||
| Right CO, L/min | 2.3 ± .8 | 2.5 ± .6 | 3.3 ± .8 | ||
| Right CO echo, L/min | 3.0 ± 1.1 | 2.6 ± .7 | 3.7 ± .8 | ||
| NF group | HR, beats/min | 119 ± 9 | 128 ± 11 | 138 ± 9 | |
| AP, mmHg | 91 ± 6* | 80 ± 8 | 73 ± 7 | ||
| PAP, mmHg | 26 ± 4 | 31 ± 3 | 29 ± 3 | ||
| PVR, dyn · s · cm−5 | 481 ± 74 | 538 ± 69 | 456 ± 61 | ||
| EtCO2, mmHg | 27 ± 3 | 33 ± 3 | 30 ± 4 | ||
| Right CO, L/min | 2.8 ± .8 | 3.2 ± .6 | 4.4 ± .5 | ||
| Right CO echo, L/min | 3.5 ± 1.0 | 3.4 ± 1.0 | 4.6 ± 1.0 |
Groups: LF/low blood flow rate of 1.5 L/min; NF/normal blood flow rate of 3 L/min. ECLS extracorporeal life support, HR heart rate, AP arterial pressure, PAP pulmonary arterial pressure, PVR pulmonary vascular resistance, CO cardiac output
Values are presented as mean ± SEM. Results are presented for the ten pigs with right cardiac output measurement using the Doppler echocardiography method. * p < 0.05 compared with the other group
Fig. 4Cytokine concentrations according to group between baseline (B) and endpoint (E) * IL-1β concentration significantly increased between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.03), no significant variation between groups (p = 0.055). & IL-6 concentration significantly increased between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.01); no significant variation between groups (p = 0.11). § IL-10 concentration significantly increased between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.02); no significant variation between groups (p = 0.057). £ TNF-α concentration significantly increased between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.03); no significant variation between groups (p = 0.23). # RAGE concentration significantly increased between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.008); no significant variation between groups (p = 0.97)