Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Hu, Bo
• Xiang, Hui
• Liang, Hui
• Yu, Li
• Xu, Tao
• Yang, Jun-Hui
• DU, Zhao-Hui
• Li, Jian-Guo

Titel

Assessment effect of central venous pressure in fluid resuscitation in the patients with shock： a multi-center retrospective research

Ist Teil von

• Chinese medical journal, 2013-05, Vol.126 (10), p.1844-1849

Ort / Verlag

China: Department of Intensive Care Unit, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China%Department of Intensive Care Unit, Wuhan Central Hospital, Wuhan,Hubei 430014, China%Department of Intensive Care Unit, Wuhan Pu'ai Hospital, Wuhan,Hubei 430032, China

Erscheinungsjahr

2013

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background Central venous pressure （CVP） and intrathoracic blood volume index （ITBVI） were used to assess the fluid status. It has previously been shown that CVP is not as accurate as ITBVI for all the shock patients. We therefore hypothesized that the change of CVP has the ability to predict fluid responsiveness in some clinical cases of shock. Methods From September 1st 2009 to September 1st 2011, sixty-three patients with shock from different Intensive Care Unit （ICU） were collected into this retrospective study. All the patients received fluid challenge strategy （infusing 300 ml hydroxyethyl starch in 20 minutes）, were monitored with CVP and pulse-indicated continuous cardiac output （PICCO）. The correlation between changes in cardiac index （ACI）, CVP （ACVP） and ITBVI （AITBVI） were analyzed. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in CI 〉10%. Receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curves were generated for ACVP and AITBVI. Results For all the patients, there was no correlation between ACI and ACVP （P=0.073）, but in the subgroup analysis, the correlation between ACI and ACVP was significant in those younger than 60 years old （P=0.018） and those with hypovolemic shock （P=0.001）. The difference of areas under the ROC curves of ACVP and AITBVI were not statistically significant in the group younger than 60 years old or hypovolemic shock group （P 〉0.05, respectively）. However, no similar results can be found in the group older than 60 years old and the other two shock type groups from ROC curves of ACVP and AITBVI. Conclusions ACVP is not suitable for evaluating the volume status of the shock patients with fluid resuscitation regardless of their condition. However, in some ways, ACVP have the ability to predict fluid responsiveness in the younger shock patients or in the hypovolemic shock patients.