Kumar Nitish, Malviya Deepak, Nath Soumya S, Rastogi Shivani, Upadhyay Vishal
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021 Jan;25(1):48-53. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23440.
This study was conducted to assess fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients to avoid various complications of fluid overload.
This study was done in an ICU of a tertiary care hospital after approval from the institute ethical committee over 18 months. A total of 54 consenting adult patients were included in the study. Patients were hemodynamically unstable requiring mechanical ventilation, had acute circulatory failure, or those with at least one clinical sign of inadequate tissue perfusion. All patients were ventilated using tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg, RR-12-15/minutes, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP)-5 cm of water, and plateau pressure was kept below 30 cm water. They were sedated throughout the study. The arterial line and the central venous catheter were placed and connected to Vigileo-FloTrac transducer (Edward Lifesciences). Patients were classified into responder and nonresponder groups on the basis of the cardiac index (CI) after fluid challenge of 10 mL/kg of normal saline over 30 minutes. Pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SVV), and systolic pressure variation (SPV) were assessed and compared at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
In our study we found that PPV and SVV were significantly lower among responders than nonresponders at 30 minutes and insignificant at 60 minutes. Stroke volume variation was 10.28 ± 1.76 in the responder compared to 12.28 ± 4.42 ( = 0.02) at 30 minutes and PPV was 15.28 ± 6.94 in responders while it was 20.03 ± 4.35 in nonresponders ( = 0.01). We found SPV was insignificant at all time periods among both groups.
We can conclude that initial assessment for fluid responsiveness in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients should be based on PPV and SVV to prevent complications of fluid overload and their consequences.
Kumar N, Malviya D, Nath SS, Rastogi S, Upadhyay V. Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Arterial Waveform-derived Variables (Pulse Pressure Variation, Stroke Volume Variation, Systolic Pressure Variation) for Fluid Responsiveness in Hemodynamically Unstable Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(1):48-53.
本研究旨在评估重症患者的液体反应性,以避免液体超负荷的各种并发症。
本研究在一家三级护理医院的重症监护病房进行,经机构伦理委员会批准,历时18个月。共有54名成年患者同意参与本研究。患者血流动力学不稳定,需要机械通气,患有急性循环衰竭,或至少有一项组织灌注不足的临床体征。所有患者均采用潮气量6 - 8 mL/kg、呼吸频率12 - 15次/分钟、呼气末正压(PEEP)5 cm水柱进行通气,平台压保持在30 cm水柱以下。在整个研究过程中,患者均接受镇静。放置动脉导管和中心静脉导管,并连接到Vigileo - FloTrac传感器(爱德华生命科学公司)。在30分钟内给予患者10 mL/kg生理盐水进行液体冲击后,根据心脏指数(CI)将患者分为反应者组和无反应者组。在基线、30分钟和60分钟时评估并比较脉压变异(PPV)、每搏量变异(SVV)和收缩压变异(SPV)。
在我们的研究中,我们发现30分钟时反应者组的PPV和SVV显著低于无反应者组,60分钟时无显著差异。30分钟时,反应者组的每搏量变异为10.28±1.76,无反应者组为12.28±4.42(P = 0.02);反应者组的PPV为15.28±6.94,无反应者组为20.03±4.35(P = 0.01)。我们发现两组在所有时间段的SPV均无显著差异。
我们可以得出结论,对于重症机械通气患者,液体反应性的初始评估应基于PPV和SVV,以预防液体超负荷的并发症及其后果。
Kumar N, Malviya D, Nath SS, Rastogi S, Upadhyay V. 不同动脉波形衍生变量(脉压变异、每搏量变异、收缩压变异)对血流动力学不稳定的机械通气重症患者液体反应性的疗效比较。《印度重症监护医学杂志》2021;25(1):48 - 53。