Jelenko C, Williams J B, Wheeler M L, Callaway B D, Fackler V K, Albers C A, Barger A A
Crit Care Med. 1979 Apr;7(4):157-67.
We have reevaluated and clinically tested the current concepts of shock and resuscitation on a logical, physiological, and physical basis. We have considered the currently accepted resuscitation paradigm which is based upon the thesis that early rapid resuscitation of "lost" fluid volume is mandatory and that adequacy of resuscitation can be evaluated by central venous pressure, PAP, PAWP, pulse rate, blood pressure, and/or urine volume. Such methods also accept as natural concomitants that capillary beds are "damaged by injury"; that they "leak" salt, fluid, and albumin; and that these are expected occurrences which are injury-related. We have also examined and clinically evaluated the thesis that MAP is a primary reflector of the relationships between volume and the size of the currently available functional vascular space. (Currently available functional vascular space is mediated through the baroreceptor (stretch receptor)/neuroendocrine mechanisms.) Under this hypothesis, fluid resuscitation comprises infusion of a volume per unit time given so as to replete currently measurable fluid losses and to normalize and/or sustain MAP and the normal osmolar and oncotic relationships at the capillary/tissue interface while holding hydrostatic pressure at normal. Using burn injury as a model, we compared statistically homogeneous, randomly selected groups of burn patients who were resuscitated using a hypotonic fluid (130 mOsm/liter) alone (group R: 7 patients), hypertonic fluid (240 mOsm/liter) alone group H: 5 patients), or the hypertonic fluid containing albumin (12.5 g/liter) (group A: 7 patients). The results indicate that significantly smaller volumes of fluid were needed to resuscitate the patients in group A with a significantly more rapid normalization of physical, physiological, and biochemical parameters. We conclude that the physically and physiologically appropriate method of resuscitation, demonstrated in burn injury, comprises the use of a fluid given at a rate: (1) to maintain mean arterial and hydrostatic pressures within normal range; (2) that delivers a volume per unit time which does not exceed the capacity of the currently available functional vascular space; (3) that replaces concurrent measurable fluid losses; (4) that is hypertonic (to normalize capillary/tissue osmotic gradients); and (5) that contains colloid (to normalize capillary/tissue osmotic gradients); and (5) that contains colloid (to normalize capillary/tissue oncotic gradients). We further conclude that salt, fluid, and colloid loss into the interstitium during resuscitation frequently is due to the rate delivered and/or the physical nature of the fluid used and not to capillary bed damage outside the zone of injury.
我们已在逻辑、生理和物理基础上重新评估并临床测试了当前关于休克和复苏的概念。我们考量了当前被广泛接受的复苏范式,该范式基于这样的论点:必须尽早快速复苏“丢失”的液体量,且复苏的充分性可通过中心静脉压、肺动脉压、肺毛细血管楔压、脉搏率、血压和/或尿量来评估。这些方法还自然而然地认为,毛细血管床“因损伤而受损”;它们“渗漏”盐、液体和白蛋白;并且这些都是与损伤相关的预期情况。我们还研究并临床评估了这样一个论点,即平均动脉压是血容量与当前可用功能性血管空间大小之间关系的主要反映指标。(当前可用功能性血管空间是通过压力感受器(牵张感受器)/神经内分泌机制介导的。)在这一假设下,液体复苏包括以每单位时间输注一定量的液体,以补充当前可测量的液体损失,并使平均动脉压以及毛细血管/组织界面处的正常渗透压和胶体渗透压关系恢复正常和/或维持正常,同时将静水压保持在正常水平。以烧伤作为模型,我们对统计学上同质、随机选取的几组烧伤患者进行了比较,这些患者分别单独使用低渗液(130毫渗摩尔/升)复苏(R组:7例患者)、单独使用高渗液(240毫渗摩尔/升)复苏(H组:5例患者)或使用含白蛋白的高渗液(12.5克/升)复苏(A组:7例患者)。结果表明,A组患者复苏所需的液体量显著更少,其身体、生理和生化参数恢复正常的速度也明显更快。我们得出结论,在烧伤中所证明的物理和生理上合适的复苏方法包括以如下速率给予液体:(1)将平均动脉压和静水压维持在正常范围内;(2)每单位时间输送的液体量不超过当前可用功能性血管空间的容量;(3)补充同时期可测量的液体损失;(4)为高渗液(以使毛细血管/组织渗透压梯度恢复正常);(5)含有胶体(以使毛细血管/组织渗透压梯度恢复正常);以及(5)含有胶体(以使毛细血管/组织胶体渗透压梯度恢复正常)。我们进一步得出结论,复苏期间盐、液体和胶体向间质的丢失通常是由于输注速率和/或所用液体的物理性质,而非损伤区域外的毛细血管床损伤所致。