Lorilee S L Arakaki1, Eileen M Bulger, Wayne A Ciesielski, David J Carlbom, Dana M Fisk, Kellie L Sheehan, Karin M Asplund, Kenneth A Schenkman. 1. *Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington †Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington ‡Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington §Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington ||Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the potential utility of a new prototype noninvasive muscle oxygenation (MOx) measurement for the identification of shock severity in a population of patients admitted to the trauma resuscitation rooms of a Level I regional trauma center. The goal of this project was to correlate MOx with shock severity as defined by standard measures of shock: systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and lactate. METHODS: Optical spectra were collected from subjects by placement of a custom-designed optical probe over the first dorsal interosseous muscles on the back of the hand. Spectra were acquired from trauma patients as soon as possible upon admission to the trauma resuscitation room. Patients with any injury were eligible for study. MOx was determined from the collected optical spectra with a multiwavelength analysis that used both visible and near-infrared regions of light. Shock severity was determined in each patient by a scoring system based on combined degrees of hypotension, tachycardia, and lactate. MOx values of patients in each shock severity group (mild, moderate, and severe) were compared using two-sample t tests. RESULTS: In 17 healthy control patients, the mean MOx value was 91.0 ± 5.5%. A total of 69 trauma patients were studied. Patients classified as having mild shock had a mean MOx of 62.5 ± 26.2% (n = 33), those classified as in moderate shock had a mean MOx of 56.9 ± 26.9% (n = 25) and those classified as in severe shock had a MOx of 31.0 ± 17.1% (n = 11). Mean MOx for each of these groups was statistically different from the healthy control group (P < 0.05).Receiver operating characteristic analyses show that MOx and shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) identified shock similarly well (area under the curves [AUC] = 0.857 and 0.828, respectively). However, MOx identified mild shock better than shock index in the same group of patients (AUC = 0.782 and 0.671, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained from this pilot study indicate that MOx correlates with shock severity in a population of trauma patients. Noninvasive and continuous MOx holds promise to aid in patient triage and to evaluate patient condition throughout the course of resuscitation.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the potential utility of a new prototype noninvasive muscle oxygenation (MOx) measurement for the identification of shock severity in a population of patients admitted to the trauma resuscitation rooms of a Level I regional trauma center. The goal of this project was to correlate MOx with shock severity as defined by standard measures of shock: systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and lactate. METHODS: Optical spectra were collected from subjects by placement of a custom-designed optical probe over the first dorsal interosseous muscles on the back of the hand. Spectra were acquired from traumapatients as soon as possible upon admission to the trauma resuscitation room. Patients with any injury were eligible for study. MOx was determined from the collected optical spectra with a multiwavelength analysis that used both visible and near-infrared regions of light. Shock severity was determined in each patient by a scoring system based on combined degrees of hypotension, tachycardia, and lactate. MOx values of patients in each shock severity group (mild, moderate, and severe) were compared using two-sample t tests. RESULTS: In 17 healthy control patients, the mean MOx value was 91.0 ± 5.5%. A total of 69 traumapatients were studied. Patients classified as having mild shock had a mean MOx of 62.5 ± 26.2% (n = 33), those classified as in moderate shock had a mean MOx of 56.9 ± 26.9% (n = 25) and those classified as in severe shock had a MOx of 31.0 ± 17.1% (n = 11). Mean MOx for each of these groups was statistically different from the healthy control group (P < 0.05).Receiver operating characteristic analyses show that MOx and shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) identified shock similarly well (area under the curves [AUC] = 0.857 and 0.828, respectively). However, MOx identified mild shock better than shock index in the same group of patients (AUC = 0.782 and 0.671, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained from this pilot study indicate that MOx correlates with shock severity in a population of traumapatients. Noninvasive and continuous MOx holds promise to aid in patient triage and to evaluate patient condition throughout the course of resuscitation.
Authors: Lars B Holst; Nicolai Haase; Jørn Wetterslev; Jan Wernerman; Anne B Guttormsen; Sari Karlsson; Pär I Johansson; Anders Aneman; Marianne L Vang; Robert Winding; Lars Nebrich; Helle L Nibro; Bodil S Rasmussen; Johnny R M Lauridsen; Jane S Nielsen; Anders Oldner; Ville Pettilä; Maria B Cronhjort; Lasse H Andersen; Ulf G Pedersen; Nanna Reiter; Jørgen Wiis; Jonathan O White; Lene Russell; Klaus J Thornberg; Peter B Hjortrup; Rasmus G Müller; Morten H Møller; Morten Steensen; Inga Tjäder; Kristina Kilsand; Suzanne Odeberg-Wernerman; Brit Sjøbø; Helle Bundgaard; Maria A Thyø; David Lodahl; Rikke Mærkedahl; Carsten Albeck; Dorte Illum; Mary Kruse; Per Winkel; Anders Perner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce A Crookes; Stephen M Cohn; Scott Bloch; Jose Amortegui; Ronald Manning; Pam Li; Matthew S Proctor; Ali Hallal; Lorne H Blackbourne; Robert Benjamin; Dror Soffer; Fahim Habib; Carl I Schulman; Robert Duncan; Kenneth G Proctor Journal: J Trauma Date: 2005-04
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Kyle Rudser; Jerris R Hedges; Jeffrey D Kerby; Ian G Stiell; Daniel P Davis; Laurie J Morrison; Eileen Bulger; Tom Terndrup; Joseph P Minei; Berit Bardarson; Scott Emerson Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-02
Authors: Tobias M Merz; Reto Etter; Ludger Mende; Daniel Barthelmes; Jan Wiegand; Luca Martinolli; Jukka Takala Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Sarah E Henrickson; Robert B Lindell; Laura F Sartori; Donglan Zhang; Jenny Bush; Sumera Farooqi; Jonathan Starr; Clifford S Deutschman; Francis X McGowan; Lance Becker; Florin Tuluc; E John Wherry; Martin Picard; Douglas C Wallace Journal: Shock Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Mitchell B Robinson; Anna M Wisniowiecki; Ryan J Butcher; Mark A Wilson; M Nance Ericson; Gerard L Cote Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Kenneth A Schenkman; David J Carlbom; Eileen M Bulger; Wayne A Ciesielski; Dana M Fisk; Kellie L Sheehan; Karin M Asplund; Jeremy M Shaver; Lorilee S L Arakaki Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240