Suppr超能文献

评估法国重症医学家和麻醉师对呼吸动脉脉搏压变化的解释的知识库。

Evaluation of the knowledge base of French intensivists and anaesthesiologists as concerns the interpretation of respiratory arterial pulse pressure variation.

机构信息

Pôle Réanimations Anesthésie Samu/Smur, CHU de Caen, avenue de la Côte-de-Nacre, CS 30001, 14000 Caen, France; EA 4650, Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, esplanade de la Paix, CS 14 032, 14000 Caen, France.

Pôle Réanimations Anesthésie Samu/Smur, CHU de Caen, avenue de la Côte-de-Nacre, CS 30001, 14000 Caen, France.

出版信息

Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2015 Feb;34(1):29-34. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2014.06.001. Epub 2015 Mar 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to assess the knowledge of intensivists and/or anaesthesiologists concerning respiratory arterial pulse pressure variation (PPV) and to define the criteria used to indicate a fluid challenge.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Intensivists and anaesthesiologists from one region of France were evaluated for their knowledge about the prerequisites (continuous arterial pressure monitoring, regular sinus rhythm, mechanical ventilation without spontaneous breathing) and confounding factors shifting the threshold value of PPV (low tidal volume, decreased pulmonary compliance, low heart rate/respiratory rate ratio, right ventricular dysfunction, and/or intra-abdominal hypertension) using clinical vignettes. Criteria used by physicians to indicate a fluid challenge were also collected.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five physicians were included in the study. Among them, 87 (60%) knew prerequisites but none of them had full knowledge of all confounding factors. Criteria used to perform a fluid challenge were mainly PPV and the passive leg-raising test for the residents and PPV, blood pressure, oliguria and hydric balance for the qualified physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

PPV was widely employed to indicate a fluid challenge and 60% of the physicians knew the prerequisites. However, the physicians did not correctly interpret all confounding factors.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估重症监护医师和/或麻醉师对呼吸动脉脉搏压变异(PPV)的了解程度,并确定用于指示液体挑战的标准。

研究设计

前瞻性观察性研究。

患者和方法

评估了法国一个地区的重症监护医师和麻醉师对其了解的先决条件(连续动脉压监测、规则窦性节律、无自主呼吸的机械通气)和影响 PPV 阈值的混杂因素(低潮气量、肺顺应性降低、心率/呼吸率比值低、右心室功能障碍和/或腹腔内高压)的临床案例。还收集了医生用于指示液体挑战的标准。

结果

本研究共纳入 145 名医生。其中,87 名(60%)了解先决条件,但没有人完全了解所有混杂因素。用于进行液体挑战的标准主要是 PPV 和被动抬腿试验(用于住院医师)以及 PPV、血压、少尿和液体平衡(用于合格医师)。

结论

PPV 广泛用于指示液体挑战,60%的医生了解先决条件。然而,医生并未正确解释所有混杂因素。

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