McGrath A M, Conhaim R L, Myers G A, Harms B A
Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, 53705, USA.
J Surg Res. 1996 Oct;65(2):128-34. doi: 10.1006/jsre.1996.0354.
Pulmonary edema is a complication of critical care fluid management that may be restricted by the use of oncotically effective resuscitation fluids. Potentially beneficial oncotic properties of starch-based plasma volume expanders such as hetastarch (Het), pentafraction (Pen), and Dextran-70 (Dex) may be compromised by their broad range of molecular masses, some of which are small enough to filter from the circulation. Leakage of these molecules into the pulmonary interstitium may limit their oncotic effectiveness and enhance fluid filtration. We measured the filtration of these three resuscitation solutions into lung lymph to evaluate their oncotic contribution to pulmonary edema formation.
Unanesthetized euvolemic adult sheep, prepared with chronic lung lymph fistulae, underwent plasma volume expansion with Het (n = 6), Pen (n = 6), or Dex (n = 6 ) (6%, 35 ml/kg/90 min). Oncotic effectiveness was determined by measuring plasma and lymph oncotic pressures and the oncotic pressures contributed by each starch. Pulmonary hydrostatic pressures and lung lymph flows (Q(L)) were also measured. Results are expressed as means +/- SEM. Comparisons were made by two-factor analysis of variance.
Dex contributed 9.0 +/- 0.9 mmHg to the plasma oncotic pressure, significantly more than Het and Pen (5.3 +/- 0.6, 6.5 +/- 0.6 mmHg, respectively). However, Dex filtration also contributed 6.1 +/- 0.5 mmHg to the lymph oncotic pressure, compared to 3.1 +/- 0.3 and 4.7 +/- 0.5 mmHg for Het and Pen, respectively (P < or = 0.05). Dex, Het, and Pen raised Q(L) over baseline by 7.7 +/- 1.5, 4.3 +/- 1.0, and 3.2 +/- 0.7 ml/30 min, respectively (P < or = 0.05). Dex increased Q(L) significantly more than Het or Pen.
Pen and Het demonstrated greater oncotic effectiveness because of restricted plasma-to-lymph macromolecular filtration and limited transvascular fluid flux. By comparison, Dex filtered rapidly and increased transvascular fluid filtration. Pen appears to possess filtration properties that optimize critical care fluid management compared to currently available colloid solutions such as Het and Dex.
肺水肿是重症监护液体管理的一种并发症,可通过使用具有胶体渗透压效应的复苏液来限制。基于淀粉的血浆容量扩充剂(如羟乙基淀粉(Het)、pentafraction(Pen)和右旋糖酐70(Dex))潜在的有益胶体渗透压特性可能因其广泛的分子量范围而受损,其中一些分子量足够小,可以从循环中滤过。这些分子渗漏到肺间质中可能会限制其胶体渗透压效果并增强液体滤过。我们测量了这三种复苏溶液进入肺淋巴的滤过情况,以评估它们对肺水肿形成的胶体渗透压贡献。
对制备有慢性肺淋巴瘘的未麻醉的血容量正常的成年绵羊,分别用Het(n = 6)、Pen(n = 6)或Dex(n = 6)(6%,35 ml/kg/90分钟)进行血浆容量扩充。通过测量血浆和淋巴胶体渗透压以及每种淀粉所贡献的胶体渗透压来确定胶体渗透压效果。还测量了肺静水压和肺淋巴流量(Q(L))。结果以平均值±标准误表示。通过双因素方差分析进行比较。
Dex对血浆胶体渗透压的贡献为9.0±0.9 mmHg,显著高于Het和Pen(分别为5.3±0.6、6.5±0.6 mmHg)。然而,Dex的滤过对淋巴胶体渗透压的贡献也为6.1±0.5 mmHg,而Het和Pen分别为3.1±0.3和4.7±0.5 mmHg(P≤0.05)。Dex、Het和Pen使Q(L)分别比基线升高7.7±1.5、4.3±1.0和3.2±0.7 ml/30分钟(P≤0.05)。Dex使Q(L)升高的幅度显著大于Het或Pen。
由于血浆到淋巴的大分子滤过受限和跨血管液体通量有限,Pen和Het表现出更大的胶体渗透压效果。相比之下,Dex滤过迅速并增加了跨血管液体滤过。与目前可用的胶体溶液(如Het和Dex)相比