| Literature DB >> 29843760 |
Maged Alnawaiseh1, Christian Ertmer2, Laura Seidel2, Philip Helge Arnemann2, Larissa Lahme1, Tim-Gerald Kampmeier2, Sebastian Willy Rehberg3, Peter Heiduschka1, Nicole Eter1, Michael Hessler4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) for quantitative analysis of flow density to assess changes in retinal perfusion in an experimental model of haemorrhagic shock.Entities:
Keywords: Fluid therapy; Haemorrhagic shock; Microcirculation; Optical coherence tomography angiography; Sheep
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29843760 PMCID: PMC5975442 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-2056-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Optical coherence tomography angiograms of retina. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiograms (a, b) and colour-coded OCT angiograms (c) of same area of sheep retina at baseline, in haemorrhagic shock, and after resuscitation. Circle 1 indicates region used for calculation of flow density (central ring). Flow density (whole en face) is average flow density of circles 1 and 2. a 6 × 6 mm2 scans. b, c 3 × 3 mm2 scans
Fig. 2Cardiac index and retinal flow density during progressive haemorrhage and after resuscitation. Changes in a cardiac index and b retinal flow density (whole en face) during progressive haemorrhage and after resuscitation for each individual animal (N = 5). *Significant difference. BL blood loss
Systemic haemodynamics and flow density of retina at baseline, during progressive haemorrhage, and after resuscitation
| Time point | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter (unit) | Baseline | BL 10 ml∙kg− 1 | BL 20 ml∙kg− 1 | BL 30 ml∙kg− 1 (haemorrhagic shock) | Resuscitation |
| MAP (mmHg) | 117 (108; 122) | 80 (74; 98) | 44 (37; 72) | 33 (30; 38)* | 93 (76; 100) |
| HR (1∙min−1) | 86 (85; 94) | 98 (84; 108) | 107 (77; 118) | 107 (92; 131) | 128 (112; 139)* |
| CI (L∙min−1∙m− 2) | 2.5 (2.2; 2.7) | 1.5 (1.4; 1.6) | 1.2 (1.0; 1.9) | 1.1 (0.8; 1.2) | 3.0 (2.7; 3.8)# |
| CVP (mmHg) | 3 (1; 10) | 6 (3; 9) | 2 (0; 11) | 0 (0; 6) | 5 (1; 9) |
| SVI (ml∙m−2) | 20 (22; 41) | 17 (15; 23) | 13 (9; 18) | 11 (6; 21) | 24 (22; 24) |
| Retinal microcirculation (OCT-A) | |||||
| Flow densityWF (%) | 44.7 (40.3; 50.5) | 44.1 (36.5; 49.7) | 38.7 (22.2; 44.1) | 34.5 (32.8; 40.4)* | 46.9 (41.7; 50.7)# |
| Flow densityCentral (%) | 45.2 (36.7; 48.6) | 43.4 (34.3; 46.4) | 39.2 (21.3; 42.2)§ | 32.5 (32.2; 40.0)§ | 48.6 (38.4; 50.3) |
Values presented as median (interquartile range)
BL blood loss, CI cardiac index, CVP central venous pressure, Flow density flow density central ring, Flow density flow density whole en face, HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, OCT-A optical coherence tomography angiography, SVI stroke volume index
*Significant difference vs baseline
#Significant difference vs haemorrhagic shock
§Significant difference vs after resuscitation
Urine output and parameters of blood gas analysis at baseline, during progressive haemorrhage, and after resuscitation
| Time point | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter (unit) | Baseline | BL 10 ml∙kg−1 | BL 20 ml∙kg−1 | BL 30 ml∙kg− 1 (haemorrhagic shock) | Resuscitation |
| Urine output (ml∙h−1) | 63 (85; 105) | 20 (8; 30) | 0 (0; 3)* | 0 (0; 0)* | 20 (20; 28) |
| Hba (g∙dl−1) | 9.0 (8.9; 10.0) | 9.2 (8.3; 9.6)§ | 8.5 (7.4; 8.6) | 7.4 (7.1; 7.8) | 5.7 (5.4; 6.2)* |
| Hcta (%) | 27.8 (27.5; 30.9) | 28.6 (25.8; 29.6)§ | 26.3 (23.2; 27.0) | 23.0 (22.2; 24.2) | 18.1 (17.2; 19.4)* |
| pH | 7.39 (7.35; 7.45) | 7.44 (7.38; 7.47) | 7.44 (7.39; 7.49) | 7.41 (7.34; 7.46) | 7.29 (7.26; 7.36) |
| Lactate (mmol∙l−1) | 1.1 (0.6; 1.2) | 0.7 (0.4; 0.9)§ | 1.0 (0.7; 1.3) | 2.0 (1.7; 3.4) | 3.8 (3.4; 4.5) |
| ScvO2 | 87 (84; 89) | 68 (61; 76) | 50 (33; 59)* | 38.8 (29.4; 46.1)* | 85.2 (79.7; 89.2)# |
Values presented as median (interquartile range)
BL blood loss, Hb arterial haemoglobin concentration, Hct arterial haematocrit, SO central venous oxygen saturation
*Significant difference vs baseline
#Significant difference vs haemorrhagic shock
§Significant difference vs after resuscitation
Parameters of conjunctival microcirculation at baseline, in haemorrhagic shock, and after resuscitation
| Time point | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter (unit) | Baseline | Haemorrhagic shock | Resuscitation |
| TVD (mm∙mm−2) | 15.4 (13.7; 17.3) | 18.5 (15.1; 19.5) | 16.3 (15.3; 18.6) |
| PVD (mm∙mm−2) | 15.4 (13.4; 17.3) | 12.1 (10.0; 13.8) | 16.0 (15.2; 18.3) |
| PPV (%) | 100.0 (98.0; 100.0) | 72.0 (57.4; 76.3)* | 98.7 (97.3; 99.1) |
| MFI | 3.1 (3.0; 3.3) | 1.9 (1.9; 2.1)* | 3.0 (3.0; 3.3) |
| HI | 0.10 (0.05; 0.16) | 0.51 (0.24; 0.73)* | 0.12 (0.33; 0.37) |
Values presented as median (interquartile range)
HI heterogeneity index, MFI microvascular flow index, PPV proportion of perfused vessel, PVD perfused vessel density, TVD total vessel density
*Significant difference vs baseline
Fig. 3Scatter diagram of retinal flow density (whole en face) and conjunctival perfused vessel density. Dots represent measurements at baseline, haemorrhagic shock, and resuscitation in the five animals