aIntensive Care Unit, Barwon Health, University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Victoria, Australia bCentre de Recherche du CHU de Sherbrooke cFaculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada dSt Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust eSchool of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017 Dec;23(6):561-566. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000460.
We reviewed the recent advances in the initial approach to resuscitation of sepsis and septic shock patients.
Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening emergencies. Two key interventions in the first hour include timely antibiotic therapy and resuscitation. Before any laboratory results, the need for resuscitation is considered if a patient with suspected infection has low blood pressure (BP) or impaired peripheral circulation found at clinical examination. Until now, this early resuscitation in sepsis and septic shock was supported by improvements in outcome seen with goal-directed therapy. However, three recent, goal-directed therapy trials failed to replicate the originally reported mortality reductions, prompting a debate on how this early resuscitation should be performed. As resuscitation is often focussed on macrociculatory goals such as optimizing central venous pressure, the discordance between microcirculatory and macrocirculatory optimization during resuscitation is a potential argument for the lack of outcome benefit in the newer trials. Vasoactive drug dose and large volume resuscitation-associated-positive fluid balance, are independently associated with worse clinical outcomes in critically ill sepsis and septic shock patients. As lower BP targets and restricted volume resuscitation are feasible and well tolerated, should we consider a lower BP target to reduce the adverse effects of catecholamine' and excess resuscitation fluids. Evidence guiding fluids, vasopressor, and inotrope selection remains limited.
Though the early resuscitation of sepsis and septic shock is key to improving outcomes, ideal resuscitation targets are elusive. Distinction should be drawn between microcirculatory and macrocirculatory changes, and corresponding targets. Common components of resuscitation bundles such as large volume resuscitation and high-dose vasopressors may not be universally beneficial. Microcirculatory targets, individualized resuscitation goals, and reassessment of completed trials using the updated septic shock criteria should be focus areas for future research.
我们回顾了脓毒症和感染性休克患者复苏初始方法的最新进展。
脓毒症和感染性休克是危及生命的紧急情况。在最初的 1 小时内,两项关键干预措施包括及时使用抗生素治疗和复苏。在获得任何实验室结果之前,如果怀疑有感染的患者在临床检查中发现低血压或外周循环受损,则认为需要进行复苏。到目前为止,这种早期复苏治疗得到了以目标导向治疗为基础的改善结局的支持。然而,最近的三项目标导向治疗试验未能复制最初报告的死亡率降低,这引发了关于如何进行这种早期复苏的争论。由于复苏通常侧重于宏观循环目标,如优化中心静脉压,因此在复苏期间微循环和宏观循环优化之间的不匹配可能是新试验中缺乏结局获益的一个潜在论点。血管活性药物剂量和大容量复苏相关的正液体平衡与危重病脓毒症和感染性休克患者的临床结局较差独立相关。由于较低的血压目标和限制的容量复苏是可行的且耐受性良好,我们是否应该考虑较低的血压目标来减少儿茶酚胺的不良反应和过多的复苏液。指导液体、血管加压药和正性肌力药选择的证据仍然有限。
尽管脓毒症和感染性休克的早期复苏是改善结局的关键,但理想的复苏目标仍难以捉摸。应区分微循环和宏观循环的变化及其相应的目标。复苏包的常见成分,如大容量复苏和大剂量血管加压药,可能并非普遍有益。微循环目标、个体化复苏目标以及使用更新的感染性休克标准重新评估已完成的试验应成为未来研究的重点。