Waisman Y, Eichacker P Q, Banks S M, Hoffman W D, MacVittie T J, Natanson C
Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1993 Feb;74(2):510-9. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.2.510.
We examined the ability of commonly used clinical parameters to quantify acute hemorrhage in dogs. Eight animals were bled 40 ml/kg body wt over 100 min. Ten hemodynamic and 20 blood laboratory parameters were obtained every 10 min to construct, with use of linear regression analysis, models that quantify blood loss. During model construction, the best indicator of quantity of hemorrhage was arterial base deficit [ABD; coefficient of variation (CV) 35%]. This model was more accurate (P < 0.05) than 27 others (CV range 43 to 63%) and similar to systolic (CV 40%) and mean (CV 40%) arterial pressures. In validation studies in 10 additional animals, our best models based on ABD and systolic and mean arterial pressures each unexpectedly showed a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in accuracy (CV 86, 57, and 60%, respectively) attributable to large baseline (before hemorrhage) variability among animals. To eliminate this variability, models based on changes from baseline measurements were investigated. The best predictor of change in blood volume was change in ABD (CV 27%). This model was significantly (P < 0.05) more accurate than any of 27 others (CV range 36 to 65%) and similar to change in venous base deficit and venous pH (each CV 31%). When validated, acid-base models such as ABD, venous pH, and arterial bicarbonate were the best predictors of volume change (CV range 28 to 40%). With the use of multivariate analysis, pairwise combinations of single parameter models (n = 465) improved prediction errors only minimally. In summary, most commonly used hemodynamic and blood indexes could not be validated as accurate measurements in quantifying hemorrhage. In contrast, changes in acid-base parameters were validated as moderately accurate predictors of blood volume changes and therefore may have utility in the assessment of patients with ongoing hemorrhage.
我们研究了常用临床参数对犬急性出血进行量化的能力。八只动物在100分钟内按每千克体重40毫升的量进行放血。每10分钟获取10项血流动力学参数和20项血液实验室参数,通过线性回归分析构建量化失血的模型。在模型构建过程中,出血总量的最佳指标是动脉碱缺失[ABD;变异系数(CV)为35%]。该模型比其他27个模型更准确(P<0.05)(CV范围为43%至63%),与收缩压(CV为40%)和平均动脉压(CV为40%)相似。在对另外10只动物进行的验证研究中,我们基于ABD以及收缩压和平均动脉压的最佳模型,每一个都意外地显示出准确性显著下降(P<0.05)(CV分别为86%、57%和60%),这是由于动物之间存在较大的基线(出血前)变异性。为消除这种变异性,对基于基线测量变化的模型进行了研究。血容量变化的最佳预测指标是ABD的变化(CV为27%)。该模型比其他27个模型中的任何一个都显著更准确(P<0.05)(CV范围为36%至65%),与静脉碱缺失和静脉pH值的变化相似(两者CV均为31%)。经过验证,诸如ABD、静脉pH值和动脉碳酸氢盐等酸碱模型是血容量变化的最佳预测指标(CV范围为28%至40%)。使用多变量分析时,单参数模型的两两组合(n = 465)仅略微改善了预测误差。总之,大多数常用的血流动力学和血液指标在量化出血方面无法被验证为准确测量指标。相比之下,酸碱参数的变化被验证为血容量变化的中度准确预测指标,因此可能在评估持续出血患者方面具有实用价值。