| Literature DB >> 28298202 |
Rafael González1,2,3, Jorge López1,2,3, Javier Urbano1,2,3, María José Solana1,2,3, Sarah Nicole Fernández1,2,3, María José Santiago2,3, Jesús López-Herce4,5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the microcirculation in critically ill patients is usually done by means of indirect parameters. The aim of our study was to evaluate the functional state of the microcirculation by direct visualization of sublingual microcirculation using Sidestream Dark Field Imaging, to determine the correlation between these findings and other parameters that are commonly used in the clinical practice and to assess the applicability of the systematic use of this technique in critically ill children.Entities:
Keywords: Critically ill child; Microcirculation; Monitoring; Paediatric intensive care; Shock
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28298202 PMCID: PMC5353860 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-017-0837-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Evaluation of sublingual microcirculation using SDF imaging device. a Device is applied to the patient on the sublingual area. b Microcirculatory image acquired by the device. c Vessels are identified during analysis (in red) allowing calculation of microcirculatory parameters. Crossing points (in yellow) with three equidistant vertical and horizontal lines are marked to calculate De Backer Score
Reasons for admission to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
| Cause of admission to the PICU | Total patients | Patients with evaluation of microcirculation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Cardiac surgery | 39 | 37.1 | 9 | 50 |
| Respiratory disease | 32 | 30.5 | 4 | 22.2 |
| Cardiac failure | 14 | 13.3 | - | - |
| Neurosurgery | 5 | 4.8 | 1 | 5.6 |
| Cardiac arrest | 3 | 2.9 | 3 | 16.7 |
| Dehydration | 3 | 2.9 | - | - |
| Seizures | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 5.6 |
| Diabetic ketoacidosis | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Domiciliary ventilation control | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Hypertensive crisis | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Renal failure | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Haemathemesis | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Orthopaedic surgery | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Septic shock | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Total | 105 | 100% | 18 | 100% |
Fig. 2Distribution of the patients included in the study. T1: First 24 h of admission. T2: Second or third days of admission
Comparison between evaluated and non-evaluated patients
| Non evaluated patients | Patients with evaluation of microcirculation | All patients | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | p | n | % | |
| Surgical | 35 | 40.2% | 10 | 55.6% | 0.194 | 45 | 42.8% |
| Scheduled admission | 38 | 43.7% | 10 | 55.6% | 0.439 | 48 | 45.7% |
| Intubated at admission | 13 | 14.9% | 13 | 72.2% |
| 26 | 24.7% |
| ECMO | 1 | 1.1% | 3 | 16.7% |
| 4 | 3.8% |
| Renal replacement therapy | 7 | 8% | 1 | 5.6% | 1 | 8 | 7.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (years) | 2.68 | 9 | 1.36 | 6.5 | 0.643 | 2.2 | 7.22 |
| Weight (Kg) | 13 | 22.2 | 12 | 12.9 | 0.589 | 12.5 | 16.3 |
| Days on mechanical ventilation | 0 | 0 | 6.5 | 18.25 |
| 0 | 1 |
| Days with vasoactive drugs | 0 | 2 | 3.5 | 10.5 |
| 0 | 3 |
| Length of stay (days) | 3 | 6 | 13.5 | 16.5 |
| 4 | 6.5 |
Statistically significant values marked in bold type
ECMO Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, IQR InterQuartile Range
Microcirculatory parameters
| Small Vessels | All Vessels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microcirculatory parameters | Median | IQR | Median | IQR |
| MFI | 2.3 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 0.4 |
| TVD | 12.7 | 3.3 | 14.0 | 3.4 |
| De Backer Score (vessels/mm) | 8.9 | 1.8 | - | - |
| PVD | 12.8 | 3.2 | 13.3 | 4.0 |
| PPV | 83.7 | 10.0 | 92.6 | 7.5 |
| HI | 0.61 | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.16 |
MFI Microvascular Flow Index, TVD Total Vessel Density, PVD Perfused Vessel Density, PPV Proportion of perfused vessels, HI Heterogeneity Index, IQR Interquartile range
Microcirculatory parameters
| T1 | T2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Vessels | All Vessels | Small Vessels | All Vessels | |||||
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | |
| MFI | 2.1 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 2.7 | 0.3 |
| TVD | 12.4 | 4.1 | 13.3 | 3.5 | 12.7 | 2.3 | 14.7 | 3.5 |
| DeBacker Score (vessels/mm) | 8.6 | 1.9 | NA | NA | 9.4 | 1.5 | NA | NA |
| PVD | 12.0 | 3.5 | 12.5 | 4.3 | 13.0 | 2.8 | 13.3 | 3.1 |
| PPV | 83.1 | 10.0 | 91.4 | 11.0 | 85.5 | 13.0 | 92.9 | 6.0 |
| HI | 0.62 | 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.58 | 0.71 | 0.25 | 0.26 |
MFI Microvascular Flow Index, TVD Total Vessel Density, PVD Perfused Vessel Density, PPV Proportion of perfused vessels, HI Heterogeneity Index, IQR Interquartile range, NA Non-Applicable
Comparison between microcirculatory parameters at T1 and T2 in the 6 patients with both measurements
| Small Vessels | All Vessels | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T1 | p | |||||||
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | p | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | p | |
| MFI | 2.1 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 1 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 2.7 | - | 0.157 |
| TVD | 14.6 | 3.6 | 12.7 | 1.9 | 0.317 | 16.0 | 2.8 | 14.7 | - | 0.157 |
| De Backer | 9.5 | 1.7 | 9.4 | 1.0 | 0.317 | NA | NA | NA | NA | - |
| PVD | 14.0 | 4.1 | 12.9 | 2.1 | 1 | 14.37 | 4.6 | 14.0 | - | 0.157 |
| PPV | 84.2 | 21.5 | 81.3 | 14.1 | 1 | 92.65 | 19.9 | 95.7 | - | 0.157 |
| HI | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.95 | 0.317 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.22 | - | 1 |
MFI Microvascular Flow Index, TVD Total Vessel Density, PVD Perfused Vessel Density, PPV Proportion of perfused vessels, HI Heterogeneity Index, IQRf Interquartile range, NAg Non-applicable
Fig. 3Scatterplot figures showing correlations found between microcirculatory parameters and other evaluated parameters. ρ: Spearman’s Rho. MFI: Microvascular Flow Index. HI: Heterogeneity Index. PPV(%): Proportion of perfused vessels. PVD: Perfused vessel density