Suppr超能文献

中心静脉压与肺动脉导管指导的休克复苏。

Central venous pressure versus pulmonary artery catheter-directed shock resuscitation.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, The Methodist Hospital and The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

出版信息

Shock. 2009 Nov;32(5):463-70. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181a20ba9.

Abstract

Previously, we developed a protocol for shock resuscitation of severe trauma patients to reverse shock and regain hemodynamic stability during the first 24 intensive care unit (ICU) hours. Key hemodynamic measurements of cardiac output and preload were obtained using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). As an alternative, we developed a protocol that used central venous pressure (CVP) to guide decision making for interventions to regain hemodynamic stability [mean arterial pressure (MAP) >or= 65 mmHg and heart rate (HR) <or= 130 bpm]. Either protocol was available and required for traumatic shock resuscitation using bedside computerized clinical decision support to standardize decision making, and PAC was available if CVP-directed resuscitation was inadequate. We hypothesized that patients would be appropriately assigned to either protocol by trauma surgeon assessment of hemodynamic stability upon ICU admission. High-risk patients admitted to a level-1 trauma center ICU underwent resuscitation. Criteria were 1) major torso trauma, 2) base deficit (BD) >or= 6 mEq/L or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, 3) transfusion of >or= 1 unit packed red blood cells (PRBC), or >or= age 65 years with two of three criteria. Patients with brain injury were excluded. Data were recorded prospectively. In 24 months ending July 31, 2006, of 193 patients, 114 (59%) were assigned CVP- directed resuscitation, and 79 (41%) were assigned PAC-directed resuscitation. A subgroup of 11 (10%) initially assigned CVP was reassigned PAC-directed resuscitation (7 +/- 2 h after start) due to hemodynamic instability. Crystalloid fluid and PRBC resuscitation volumes for PAC (8 +/- 1 L lactated Ringer's [LR], 5 +/- 0.4 units PRBC) were > CVP (5 +/- 0.4 L LR, 3 +/- 0.3 units PRBC) and similar to CVP - PAC protocol subgroup patients (9 +/- 2 L LR, 5 +/- 1 units PRBC). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay and survival rate for PAC (18 +/- 2 days, 75%) were similar to CVP - PAC (17 +/- 4 days, 73%) and worse than CVP protocol subgroup patients (9 +/- 1 days, 98%). Traumatic shock resuscitation is feasible using CVP as a primary hemodynamic monitor as part of a protocol that includes explicit definition of hemodynamic instability and where PAC monitoring is readily available. Computerized decision support provides a technique to implement complex protocol care processes and analyze patient response.

摘要

先前,我们制定了一项严重创伤患者休克复苏的方案,以在重症监护病房(ICU)的前 24 小时内逆转休克并恢复血流动力学稳定。使用肺动脉导管(PAC)获得心输出量和前负荷的关键血流动力学测量值。作为替代方法,我们制定了一项使用中心静脉压(CVP)指导恢复血流动力学稳定的干预措施的方案[平均动脉压(MAP)≥65mmHg 和心率(HR)≤130bpm]。创伤性休克复苏时,可使用床边计算机化临床决策支持来标准化决策,使用两种方案之一,并在 CVP 指导的复苏不足时使用 PAC。我们假设创伤外科医生在 ICU 入院时根据血流动力学稳定性评估将患者适当地分配到两种方案之一。高危患者接受了 1 级创伤中心 ICU 的复苏。标准为 1)主要躯干创伤,2)基础不足(BD)≥6mEq/L 或收缩压<90mmHg,3)输注≥1 单位浓缩红细胞(PRBC)或≥65 岁,有三个标准中的两个。排除有脑损伤的患者。数据前瞻性记录。在 2006 年 7 月 31 日结束的 24 个月中,193 名患者中,114 名(59%)被分配到 CVP 指导的复苏,79 名(41%)被分配到 PAC 指导的复苏。最初被分配为 CVP 指导的复苏的 11 名患者(10%)中的一个亚组由于血流动力学不稳定,在开始后 7 ± 2 小时被重新分配为 PAC 指导的复苏。PAC(8 ± 1L 乳酸林格氏液[LR],5 ± 0.4 单位 PRBC)的晶体液和 PRBC 复苏量>CVP(5 ± 0.4L LR,3 ± 0.3 单位 PRBC),与 CVP-PAC 方案亚组患者相似(9 ± 2L LR,5 ± 1 单位 PRBC)。PAC(18 ± 2 天,75%)的 ICU 入住时间和生存率与 CVP-PAC(17 ± 4 天,73%)相似,且比 CVP 方案亚组患者(9 ± 1 天,98%)差。使用 CVP 作为主要血流动力学监测作为包含血流动力学不稳定的明确定义的方案的一部分,并且 PAC 监测易于获得,创伤性休克复苏是可行的。计算机化决策支持提供了一种实施复杂方案护理流程并分析患者反应的技术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验