JOURNAL ARTICLE

[Intrathoracic blood volume index as an indicator of fluid management in septic shock]

Yong-hao Xu, Xiao-qing Liu, Wei-qun He, Yuan-da Xu, Si-bei Chen, Ling-bo Nong, Hong-chuan Huang, Yi-min Li
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue, Chinese Critical Care Medicine, Zhongguo Weizhongbing Jijiuyixue 2011, 23 (8): 462-6
21878168

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI) monitoring in fluid management strategy in septic shock patients.

METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 patients who were diagnosed to be suffering from septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU) were enrolled . Seventeen patients who received pulse indicator continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring, and ITBVI was used as indicator of fluid management, were enrolled into ITBVI group; 16 patients who received traditional fluid management strategy [directed by central venous pressure (CVP)] were enrolled into control group. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHEII) score, sepsis related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and vasopressor score were compared between 1 day and 3 days of treatment. The characteristics of fluid management were recorded and compared within 72 hours.

RESULTS: (1)In 3 days of treatment, APACHEII, SOFA and vasopressor score were significantly lower in ITBVI group compared with that of in 1 day of treatment[21.3±6.2 vs. 25.4±7.2, 6.1±3.4 vs. 9.0±3.5, 5 (0, 8.0) vs. 20.0 (8.0, 35.0), respectively, all P<0.01], whereas there were no changes in control group. (2)Although fluid output (ml) was higher in ITBVI group during 48-72 hours period (2 421± 868 vs. 1 721±934, P=0.039), there was no difference in fluid intake, fluid output or fluid balance (ml) within 0-72 hours between two groups (fluid intake: 9 918±137 vs. 10 529±1 331, fluid output : 6 035±1 739 vs. 5 827±2 897, fluid balance: 3 882±1 889 vs. 4 703±2 813, allP>0.05). (3)Comparing the fluid volume (ml) used for fluid replacement period, except that there was no significance in fluid challenge with colloid during 0-6 hours between two groups [ml: 250 (125, 500) vs. 250 (69,250), P>0.05], more fluid intake (ml) was found in ITBVI group [0-6 hours crystalloid: 250(150,250) vs. 125 (105,125), 6-72 hours crystalloid: 125 (125, 250) vs. 100 (56, 125), 0-72 hours crystalloid: 250(125, 250) vs. 125 (75, 125), 6-72 hours colloid: 125 (106, 250) vs. 75 (50, 125), 0-72 hours colloid: 200 (125, 250) vs. 100 (50, 125),all P<0.01].

CONCLUSION: Clinical picture in patients with septic shock is improved after 3 days of treatment than 1 day of treatment under fluid management directed by ITBVI, compared with by CVP. This improvement may be attributable to accurate assessment of preload and appropriate infusion rate in fluid challenge.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
21878168
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"