Yu H, Zhu P P, Chen L Y, Zhu F F, Hu R L, Li X J
Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Guangzhou 510220, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2021 Feb 20;37(2):136-142. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200908-00403.
To investigate the application of pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring technology in fluid resuscitation of severe burn patients in shock period. From January 2015 to December 2019, 33 patients with severe burns who were hospitalized in Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, meeting the inclusion criteria, were recruited into a retrospective cohort study with their clinical information collected. The patients were divided into PiCCO monitoring group with 15 cases (13 males and 2 females, aged (43±13) years) and routine monitoring group with 18 cases (14 males and 4 females, aged (39±9) years) according to the monitoring method used. After admission, all the patients were rehydrated following the rehydration formula of the Third Military Medical University for shock period. In routine monitoring group, the fluid resuscitation of patients was performed by monitoring indicators such as urine volume and blood pressure, while PiCCO monitoring was performed among patients in PiCCO monitoring group, and their fluid resuscitation was guided by the patient's condition and the hemodynamic parameters (without pursuing normal levels of the parameters) of PiCCO monitoring on the basis of normal monitoring indicators in routine monitoring group. The colloids coefficients, the electrolyte coefficients (compared with the corresponding rehydration formula value of 0.75 mL·kg(-1)·% total body surface area (TBSA)(-1) of the Third Military Medical University for shock period during the first 24 h post injury), the total rehydration coefficients, and the urine volumes during the first and second 24 h post injury, the lactic acid level, the base excess level, and the oxygenation index at admission and 24, 48 h after admission, and the mechanical ventilation time, the wound healing time, and the death ratio of patients in the two groups were recorded. The cardiac index, the global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI), the intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI), the extravascular lung water index (EVLWI), and the systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) of patients in PiCCO monitoring group at post injury hour 24, 48, and 72 and the abnormal cases were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with Fisher's exact probability test, independent-sample or one-sample test, analysis of variance for repeated measurement, and Bonferroni correction. During the first 24 h post injury, the colloids coefficients of patients in PiCCO monitoring group was (0.69±0.15) mL·kg(-1)·%TBSA(-1), which was significantly less than (0.85±0.16) mL·kg(-1)·%TBSA(-1) in routine monitoring group (=-2.612, <0.05). Compared with the rehydration formula value of the Third Military Medical University for shock period, only the colloids coefficient of patients in routine monitoring group during the first 24 h post injury was significantly increased (=2.847, <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the colloids coefficients of patients during the second 24 h post injury, or the electrolyte coefficients, the total rehydration coefficients, the urine volumes of patients during the first and the second 24 h post injury (=0.579, -0.011, 0.417, -1.321, -0.137, 0.031, 1.348, >0.05). The lactic acid level, the base excess level, the oxygenation index of patients at admission and 48 h after admission, and the oxygenation index of patients at 24 h after admission between the two groups were similar (=-1.837, 0.620, 0.292, -1.792, 1.912, -0.167, 1.695, >0.05). The levels of lactic acid and base excess of patients in PiCCO monitoring group were (4.8±1.4) and (1.2±5.5)mmol/L, respectively, which were significantly better than (7.0±1.5) and (-2.8±3.0) mmol/L in routine monitoring group at 24 h after admission (=-3.904, 2.562, <0.05 or <0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the mechanical ventilation time or the wound healing time of patients (=-0.699, -0.697, >0.05), or the death ratio of patients (>0.05). In PiCCO monitoring group, the GEDVI, and the ITBVI of patients were lower than the normal low values at post injury hour 24 and 48, which were in the normal range at post injury hour 72; the cardiac index of patients increased gradually and recovered to normal at post injury hour 48; the SVRI of patients increased significantly at post injury hour 24 and then gradually decreased to normal; the EVLWI average of patients at all time points post injury were less than 10 mL/kg. At post injury hour 24, most of the hemodynamic parameters of more than or equal to 8/15 patients in PiCCO monitoring group were abnormal, and the abnormal proportion decreased later. On the basis of traditional monitoring indicators, the use of PiCCO monitoring technology combined with the patient's condition (without pursuing normal levels of the parameters) in guiding the fluid resuscitation in severe burn patients can reduce the usage of colloid and better improve tissue perfusion, with the resuscitation effect being better than conventional monitoring.
探讨脉搏轮廓心输出量(PiCCO)监测技术在重度烧伤休克期患者液体复苏中的应用。选取2015年1月至2019年12月在广州市红十字会医院住院治疗、符合纳入标准的33例重度烧伤患者,收集其临床资料,进行回顾性队列研究。根据监测方法将患者分为PiCCO监测组15例(男13例,女2例,年龄(43±13)岁)和常规监测组18例(男14例,女4例,年龄(39±9)岁)。入院后,所有患者均按照第三军医大学休克期补液公式进行补液。常规监测组患者通过监测尿量、血压等指标进行液体复苏,PiCCO监测组患者则进行PiCCO监测,并在常规监测组正常监测指标的基础上,根据患者病情及PiCCO监测的血流动力学参数(不追求参数的正常水平)指导液体复苏。记录两组患者伤后第1个24小时、第2个24小时的胶体液系数、电解质系数(与第三军医大学休克期伤后24小时相应补液公式值0.75 mL·kg-1·%总体表面积(TBSA)-1比较)、总补液系数、尿量,入院时及入院后24、48小时的乳酸水平、碱剩余水平、氧合指数,以及机械通气时间、创面愈合时间和患者死亡率。记录PiCCO监测组患者伤后24、48、72小时的心脏指数、全心舒张末期容积指数(GEDVI)、胸腔内血容量指数(ITBVI)、血管外肺水指数(EVLWI)及异常例数。采用Fisher确切概率检验、独立样本或单样本t检验、重复测量方差分析及Bonferroni校正进行统计学分析。伤后第1个24小时,PiCCO监测组患者的胶体液系数为(0.69±0.15)mL·kg-1·%TBSA-1,明显低于常规监测组的(0.85±0.16)mL·kg-1·%TBSA-1(t=-2.612,P<0.05)。与第三军医大学休克期补液公式值比较,仅常规监测组患者伤后第1个24小时的胶体液系数明显升高(t=2.847,P<0.05)。两组患者伤后第2个24小时的胶体液系数、电解质系数、总补液系数、伤后第1个24小时和第2个24小时的尿量比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.579、-0.011、0.417、-1.321、-0.137、0.031、1.348,P>0.05)。两组患者入院时及入院后48小时乳酸水平、碱剩余水平、氧合指数,以及入院后24小时氧合指数比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=-1.837、0.620、0.292、-1.792、1.912、-0.167、1.695,P>0.05)。PiCCO监测组患者入院后24小时乳酸水平和碱剩余水平分别为(4.8±1.4)、(1.2±5.5)mmol/L,明显优于常规监测组的(7.0±1.5)、(-2.8±3.0)mmol/L(t=-3.904、2.562,P<0.05或P<0.01)。两组患者机械通气时间、创面愈合时间及患者死亡率比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=-0.699、-0.697,P>0.05)。PiCCO监测组患者伤后24、48小时GEDVI、ITBVI低于正常低值,伤后72小时在正常范围内;心脏指数伤后逐渐升高,伤后48小时恢复正常;全身血管阻力指数伤后第24小时明显升高,随后逐渐下降至正常;伤后各时间点血管外肺水指数均值均小于10 mL/kg。伤后24小时,PiCCO监测组≥8/15患者的多数血流动力学参数异常,后期异常比例下降。在传统监测指标基础上,应用PiCCO监测技术结合患者病情(不追求参数的正常水平)指导重度烧伤患者液体复苏,可减少胶体液用量,更好地改善组织灌注,复苏效果优于传统监测。