| Literature DB >> 29444696 |
Alexandros Rovas1,2, Alexander-Henrik Lukasz1, Hans Vink3, Marc Urban2, Jan Sackarnd4, Hermann Pavenstädt1, Philipp Kümpers5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deterioration of the endothelial glycocalyx (eGC), a protective carbohydrate-rich layer lining the luminal surface of the endothelium, plays a key role in vascular barrier dysfunction and eventually organ-failure in systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis. Early detection of glycocalyx damage could thus become an important goal in critical care. This study was designed to determine the feasibility and reproducibility of quantitative, real-time glycocalyx measurements performed at bedside in the emergency room (ER) and intensive care unit (ICU).Entities:
Keywords: Emergency room; Endothelial glycocalyx; Intensive care unit; Intravital microscopy; Perfused boundary region; Sidestream darkfield microscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29444696 PMCID: PMC5813422 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-018-0483-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Baseline characteristics
| Variable | Total | ICU | ER |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients (n; %) | 70 (100) | 25 (35.7) | 45 (64.3) | |
| Female sex (n; %) | 37 (53) | 15 (60) | 22 (49) | 0.46 |
| Age (years, median (IQR)) | 61 (47.5–73.25) | 63 (58–75.5) | 58 (33.5–73) | 0.07 |
| BMI (kg/m2, median (IQR)) | 25.16 | 26.75 | 24.15 | 0.005 |
| Diabetes Mellitus (n; %) | 13 (19%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (16%) | 0.52 |
| CCI score (median (IQR)) | 2 (0–4) | 2 (0.5–4) | 1 (0–4) | 0.51 |
| SOFA score (median (IQR)) | 1 (0–2) | 3 (1–6.5) | 0 (0–1) | < 0.0001 |
| Causes of admission/presentation | ||||
| Infection/Sepsis (n; %) | 28 (40) | 11 (44) | 17 (37.8) | |
| ACS/Congestive heart failure (n; %) | 11 (16) | 8 (32) | 3 (7) | |
| OHCA (n; %) | 3 (4) | 3 (12) | 0 (0) | |
| Abdominal (n; %) | 5 (7.1) | 0 (0) | 5 (11.1) | |
| Syncope/Arrhythmia (n; %) | 7 (10) | 0 (0) | 7 (16) | |
| Other (n; %) | 16 (23) | 3 (12) | 13 (29) | |
| Hemodynamic data (median (IQR)) | ||||
| PBR (μm) | 2.41 (2.26–2.61) | 2.58 (2.29–2.72) | 2.32 (2.24–2.53) | 0.033 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 89.67 (75–101) | 74.5 (70.67–85.5) | 95 (86.33–106.7) | < 0.0001 |
| Heart Rate (pulse/min) | 79 (69–94) | 85 (74.25–103.8) | 79 (66–93) | 0.12 |
| Respiratory Rate (breaths/min) | 19 (17.25–22.75) | 21 (19–23.75) | 18 (15–22) | 0.004 |
| Temperature (°C) | 36.8 (36.5–37.18) | 36.9 (36.53–37.28) | 36.7 (36.5–37) | 0.33 |
| Laboratory data (median (IQR)) | ||||
| WBC count (/μl) | 9215 | 12,730 | 8060 | 0.002 |
| CRP (mg/dl) | 2.25 (0.5–12.28) | 9.8 (4–13.7) | 0.9 (0.5–4.05) | < 0.0001 |
| Lactate (mmol/l) | 1.1 (0.9–1.7) | 1.1 (0.9–1.55) | 1.3 (1–1.7) | 0.43 |
ACS = acute coronary syndrome, BMI = body mass index, CCI score = Charlson comorbidity index, CRP = C-reactive protein, IQR = interquartile range, MAP = mean arterial pressure, OHCA = out of hospital cardiac arrest, SOFA score = sequential organ failure assessment score, WBC = white blood cell
Fig. 1Image acquisition with the use of GlycoCheck™ System. Measurements were performed by using the GlycoCheck™ System, which consists of a sidestream-darkfield (SDF) camera coupled to a high-performance laptop computer. a A.R. (left) and P.K. (right) conducting a sublingual GlycoCheck™ measurement in a healthy volunteer. b Schematic illustration of cross section of a microvessel. GlycoCheck™ detects the dynamic lateral movement into the glycocalyx, which is expressed as the perfused boundary region (PBR, in μm). An impaired glycocalyx allows more RBCs to penetrate deeper towards the endothelial surface, which is reflected by an increase in PBR. c Representative image of the sublingual mucosa acquired with the SDF camera. d Quality check being automatically performed by the GlycoCheck™ software. Invalid vascular segments are marked yellow and are automatically discarded, while all valid vascular segments (green lines) are further analyzed. PBR: perfused boundary region, RBC: red blood cell, RBCW: red blood cell width
Fig. 2Inter-observer reproducibility of Perfused Boundary Region (PBR) measured by the nurses and physician. Eight trained nurses and a physician obtained paired sets of measurements (random order) in a total of 40 patients (n = 25 in the ER and n = 15 in the ICU) to determine the inter-observer reproducibility. a Boxplots showing PBR values (in μm) obtained by the nurses and the physician. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the paired PBR values. b Bland-Altman plot showing the limits of agreement (bias ±1.96 SD) between paired values for the nurses’ and physician’s perfused boundary region (PBR) measurements. (ER: Emergency Department, ICU: Intensive Care Unit, PBR: perfused boundary region, RBC: red blood cell
Regression Coefficient β
| Independent Variable* | Regression Coefficient β | R Square | 95% CI for coefficient β |
|---|---|---|---|
| RBC filling percentage | − 0.031 | 0.59 | − 0.037 to − 0.024 |
| +Age, sex, BMI, SOFA | −0.03 | 0.609 | −0.037 to − 0.024 |
*Dependent Variable: Perfused boundary region (PBR)
BMI, body mass index, RBC filling percentage, red blood cell filling percentage, SOFA score, sequential organ failure assessment score