Suppr超能文献

以 P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 为导向的复苏与 SvO2 比较,不能改善严重脓毒症和感染性休克的预后:一项前瞻性多中心随机对照临床研究。

P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2-directed resuscitation does not improve prognosis compared with SvO2 in severe sepsis and septic shock: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled clinical study.

机构信息

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Pinggu Hospital, Beijing 101200, China.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2018 Dec;48:314-320. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.09.009. Epub 2018 Sep 11.

Abstract

PURPOSES

The present study examined the value of P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 compared with ScvO2 as a target for clinical resuscitation of severe sepsis/septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

228 patients were randomly divided into a P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2-targeted and a ScvO2-targeted therapy group. The effects on hemodynamics, interventional intensity, and outcome were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean arterial pressure (MAP) of the P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2-targeted therapy group was significantly higher at 3 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 3 days (P < .05). The P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 of the ScvO2-targeted therapy group was significantly higher at each time point after resuscitation (P < .05). However, the CVP, lactate, urine output, ScvO2, and P(v-a)CO2 were not significantly improved. The P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2-targeted therapy group used a smaller fluid volume and required fewer red blood cell transfusions and vasoactive drugs, but these results were also not significant. There were no differences between 28-day and 60-day mortality, APACHEII and SOFA scores, ICU length of stay, residence length of stay, number of days free of vasoactive drugs, or number of ventilator-free days. Post hoc tests revealed no significant differences between these two groups in 28-day survival.

CONCLUSION

P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2-directed resuscitation did not improve prognosis compared with ScvO2 in severe sepsis and septic shock. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01877798.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较 P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 与 ScvO2 作为严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克临床复苏目标的价值。

材料和方法

将 228 例患者随机分为 P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 目标治疗组和 ScvO2 目标治疗组。记录和分析对血流动力学、干预强度和预后的影响。

结果

P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 目标治疗组的平均动脉压(MAP)在 3 h、12 h、24 h 和 3 d 时显著升高(P<.05)。复苏后各时间点 ScvO2 目标治疗组的 P(v-a)CO2 显著升高(P<.05)。然而,CVP、乳酸、尿量、ScvO2 和 P(v-a)CO2 均无明显改善。P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 目标治疗组的液体用量较小,需要输注的红细胞和血管活性药物较少,但这些结果也无显著差异。28 天和 60 天死亡率、APACHEII 和 SOFA 评分、ICU 住院时间、住院时间、无血管活性药物天数和无呼吸机天数无差异。事后检验显示,两组 28 天生存率无显著差异。

结论

与 ScvO2 相比,P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 指导复苏并未改善严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的预后。ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符 NCT01877798。

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