Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Crit Care Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):2543-51. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318258fee7.
To assess shock reversal and required fluid volumes in patients with septic shock.
Prospective before and after study comparing three different treatment periods.
Fifty-bed single-center surgical intensive care unit.
Consecutive patients with severe sepsis.
Fluid therapy directed at preset hemodynamic goals with hydroxyethyl starch (predominantly 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4) in the first period, 4% gelatin in the second period, and only crystalloids in the third period.
Main outcome was time to shock reversal (serum lactate <2.2 mmol/L and discontinuation of vasopressor use). Hemodynamic goals were mean arterial pressure >70 mm Hg; ScvO2 <70%; central venous pressure >8 mm Hg. Safety outcomes were acute kidney injury defined by Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage kidney disease criteria and new need for renal replacement therapy. Hemodynamic measures, serum lactate, and creatinine were comparable at baseline in all study periods (hydroxyethyl starch n = 360, gelatin n = 352, only crystalloids n = 334). Severity scores, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit or hospital mortality did not differ significantly among groups. All groups showed similar time to shock reversal. More fluid was needed over the first 4 days in the crystalloid group (fluid ratios 1.4:1 [crystalloids to hydroxyethyl starch] and 1.1:1 [crystalloids to gelatin]). After day 5, fluid balance was more negative in the crystalloid group. Hydroxyethyl starch and gelatin were independent risk factors for acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval 2.55, 1.76-3.69 and 1.85, 1.31-2.62, respectively). Patients receiving synthetic colloids received significantly more allogeneic blood products.
Shock reversal was achieved equally fast with synthetic colloids or crystalloids. Use of colloids resulted in only marginally lower required volumes of resuscitation fluid. Both low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starch and gelatin may impair renal function.
评估感染性休克患者的休克逆转和所需液体量。
比较三种不同治疗期的前瞻性前后研究。
50 张床位的单中心外科重症监护病房。
连续患有严重败血症的患者。
在第一个时期以预设的血流动力学目标进行液体治疗,使用羟乙基淀粉(主要为 6%羟乙基淀粉 130/0.4),在第二个时期使用 4%明胶,在第三个时期仅使用晶体。
主要结果是休克逆转时间(血清乳酸<2.2mmol/L 和停止使用血管加压药)。血流动力学目标为平均动脉压>70mmHg;ScvO2<70%;中心静脉压>8mmHg。安全性结果为根据风险、损伤、衰竭、损失和终末期肾病标准定义的急性肾损伤和新的肾脏替代治疗需求。在所有研究期,羟乙基淀粉组(n=360)、明胶组(n=352)和仅晶体组(n=334)的基线血流动力学测量、血清乳酸和肌酐均无显著差异。严重程度评分、住院时间、重症监护病房或医院死亡率在各组之间无显著差异。所有组的休克逆转时间均相似。晶体组在第 4 天前需要更多的液体(晶体与羟乙基淀粉的液体比为 1.4:1,晶体与明胶的液体比为 1.1:1)。第 5 天后,晶体组的液体平衡更为负值。羟乙基淀粉和明胶是急性肾损伤的独立危险因素(优势比,95%置信区间 2.55、1.76-3.69 和 1.85、1.31-2.62)。接受合成胶体的患者接受了明显更多的同种异体血液制品。
合成胶体或晶体同样快速地实现休克逆转。胶体的使用仅导致复苏液体所需量略有减少。低分子羟乙基淀粉和明胶都可能损害肾功能。