Suppr超能文献

被动抬腿试验能否预测急诊科液体复苏的反应?

Can passive leg raise predict the response to fluid resuscitation in ED?

机构信息

Emergency Medicine Academic Group, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Level G Jarvis Building RMO, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.

Emergency Department, Kettering General Hospital, Kettering, UK.

出版信息

BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Oct 26;22(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00721-6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Passive leg raise (PLR) can be used as a reversible preload challenge to stratify patients according to preload response. We aim to evaluate the accuracy of PLR, monitored by a non-invasive cardiac output monitor in predicting to response to fluid resuscitation in emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We recruited adult patients planned to receive a resuscitation fluid bolus. Patients were monitored using a thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) cardiac output monitor (Niccomo, Medis, Germany). A 3-min PLR was carried out before and after fluid infusion. Stroke volume changes (ΔSV) were calculated and a positive response was defined as ≥ 15% increase.

RESULTS

We recruited 39 patients, of which 37 were included into the analysis. The median age was 63 (50-77) years and 19 patients were females. 17 patients (46%) were fluid responders compared to 11 (30%) with positive response to PLR1. ΔSV with PLR1 and fluid bolus showed moderate correlation (r = 0.47, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.17-0.69) and 62% concordance rate. For the prediction of the response to a fluid bolus the PLR test had a sensitivity of 41% (95% CI 22-64) and specificity of 80% (95% CI 58-92) with an area under the curve of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41-0.78). None of the standard parameters showed a better predictive ability compared to PLR.

CONCLUSION

Using TEB, ΔSV with PLR showed a moderate correlation with fluid bolus, with a limited accuracy to predict fluid responsiveness. The PLR test was a better predictor of fluid responsiveness than the parameters commonly used in emergency care (such as heart rate and blood pressure). These data suggest the potential for a clinical trial in sepsis comparing TEB monitored, PLR directed fluid management with standard care.

摘要

目的

被动抬腿(PLR)可作为一种可逆转的前负荷挑战,根据前负荷反应对患者进行分层。我们旨在评估非侵入性心输出量监测仪监测下的 PLR 在预测急诊(ED)患者液体复苏反应中的准确性。

方法

我们招募了计划接受液体复苏的成年患者。患者使用胸部电阻抗(TEB)心输出量监测仪(Niccomo,Medis,德国)进行监测。在液体输注前后进行 3 分钟的 PLR。计算每搏量变化(ΔSV),并将≥15%的增加定义为阳性反应。

结果

我们共招募了 39 名患者,其中 37 名患者纳入分析。患者的中位年龄为 63(50-77)岁,19 名患者为女性。17 名患者(46%)为液体反应者,而 PLR1 阳性反应者为 11 名(30%)。PLR1 和液体冲击后 ΔSV 呈中度相关(r=0.47,95%置信区间,CI 0.17-0.69),且符合率为 62%。对于液体冲击反应的预测,PLR 试验的敏感性为 41%(95%CI 22-64),特异性为 80%(95%CI 58-92),曲线下面积为 0.59(95%CI 0.41-0.78)。与 PLR 相比,没有一个标准参数显示出更好的预测能力。

结论

使用 TEB,PLR 后的 ΔSV 与液体冲击呈中度相关,预测液体反应性的准确性有限。PLR 试验比急诊护理中常用的参数(如心率和血压)更能预测液体反应性。这些数据表明,在脓毒症患者中进行比较 TEB 监测、PLR 指导的液体管理与标准护理的临床试验具有潜力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7f0/9608892/1ee3c3d3220b/12873_2022_721_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Can passive leg raise predict the response to fluid resuscitation in ED?
BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Oct 26;22(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00721-6.
2
What is the normal haemodynamic response to passive leg raise? A study of healthy volunteers.
Emerg Med J. 2018 Sep;35(9):544-549. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206836. Epub 2018 May 4.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Fluid therapy in the emergency department: an expert practice review.
Emerg Med J. 2018 Aug;35(8):511-515. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207245. Epub 2018 May 28.
2
What is the normal haemodynamic response to passive leg raise? A study of healthy volunteers.
Emerg Med J. 2018 Sep;35(9):544-549. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206836. Epub 2018 May 4.
4
Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2223-2234. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701380. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
5
Thoracic electrical bioimpedance versus suprasternal Doppler in emergency care.
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Aug;29(4):391-393. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12765. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
6
The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Mar 6;25(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0370-4.
7
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):486-552. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255.
8
Hemodynamic Effect of Different Doses of Fluids for a Fluid Challenge: A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Study.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Feb;45(2):e161-e168. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002067.
9
Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Dec;42(12):1935-1947. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1. Epub 2016 Jan 29.
10
Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Spontaneously Breathing Patients.
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Feb;23(2):186-90. doi: 10.1111/acem.12864. Epub 2016 Jan 14.

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