Cargando…

Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND: Initial fluid resuscitation is an important hemodynamic therapy in patients with septic shock. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend fluid resuscitation with volume loading according to central venous pressure (CVP). However, patients with septic shock often develop a transi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sasai, Takako, Tokioka, Hiroaki, Fukushima, Tomihiro, Mikane, Takeshi, Oku, Satoru, Iwasaki, Etsu, Ishii, Mizue, Mieda, Hideyuki, Ishikawa, Tomoki, Minami, Eriko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4336121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25705416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-014-0058-z
_version_ 1782358426770210816
author Sasai, Takako
Tokioka, Hiroaki
Fukushima, Tomihiro
Mikane, Takeshi
Oku, Satoru
Iwasaki, Etsu
Ishii, Mizue
Mieda, Hideyuki
Ishikawa, Tomoki
Minami, Eriko
author_facet Sasai, Takako
Tokioka, Hiroaki
Fukushima, Tomihiro
Mikane, Takeshi
Oku, Satoru
Iwasaki, Etsu
Ishii, Mizue
Mieda, Hideyuki
Ishikawa, Tomoki
Minami, Eriko
author_sort Sasai, Takako
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Initial fluid resuscitation is an important hemodynamic therapy in patients with septic shock. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend fluid resuscitation with volume loading according to central venous pressure (CVP). However, patients with septic shock often develop a transient decrease in cardiac function; thus, it may be inappropriate to use CVP as a reliable marker for fluid management. METHODS: We evaluated 40 adult patients with septic shock secondary to intra-abdominal infection who received active treatment and were monitored using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and CVP for 2 days after admission to our intensive care unit (ICU). We measured left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left atrial diameter (LAD), and the pressure gradient of tricuspid regurgitation (TR∆P). The shock status was treated with volume loading and inotrope/vasopressor administration according to the TTE findings. We assessed left ventricular fractional shortening (LVFS) as an index of left ventricular contractility and TR∆P as an index of right ventricular afterload and then examined the correlation between CVP and LVEDD/LAD/TR∆P. RESULTS: LVFS decreased to ≤30% in 42.5% and 27.5% of patients with septic shock, and severe left ventricular dysfunction with LVFS ≤20% developed in 12.5% and 15.0% of patients on the first and second ICU days, respectively, despite the use of inotropes/vasopressors. Mild pulmonary hypertension as indicated by TR∆P ≥30 mmHg was present in 27.5% and 30.0% of patients on their first and second ICU days, respectively. There was no significant correlation between CVP and LVEDD/LAD/TR∆P. The hospital mortality rate in this study was 10.0%, although the predicted mortality based on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 58.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CVP is not a reliable marker of left ventricular preload for fluid management during the initial phase of septic shock. Assessment of left ventricular preload, right ventricular overload, and left ventricular contractility using TTE seems to be more informative than the measurement of CVP for fluid resuscitation since some patients developed left ventricular dysfunction and/or right ventricular overload.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4336121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43361212015-02-21 Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock Sasai, Takako Tokioka, Hiroaki Fukushima, Tomihiro Mikane, Takeshi Oku, Satoru Iwasaki, Etsu Ishii, Mizue Mieda, Hideyuki Ishikawa, Tomoki Minami, Eriko J Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Initial fluid resuscitation is an important hemodynamic therapy in patients with septic shock. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend fluid resuscitation with volume loading according to central venous pressure (CVP). However, patients with septic shock often develop a transient decrease in cardiac function; thus, it may be inappropriate to use CVP as a reliable marker for fluid management. METHODS: We evaluated 40 adult patients with septic shock secondary to intra-abdominal infection who received active treatment and were monitored using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and CVP for 2 days after admission to our intensive care unit (ICU). We measured left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left atrial diameter (LAD), and the pressure gradient of tricuspid regurgitation (TR∆P). The shock status was treated with volume loading and inotrope/vasopressor administration according to the TTE findings. We assessed left ventricular fractional shortening (LVFS) as an index of left ventricular contractility and TR∆P as an index of right ventricular afterload and then examined the correlation between CVP and LVEDD/LAD/TR∆P. RESULTS: LVFS decreased to ≤30% in 42.5% and 27.5% of patients with septic shock, and severe left ventricular dysfunction with LVFS ≤20% developed in 12.5% and 15.0% of patients on the first and second ICU days, respectively, despite the use of inotropes/vasopressors. Mild pulmonary hypertension as indicated by TR∆P ≥30 mmHg was present in 27.5% and 30.0% of patients on their first and second ICU days, respectively. There was no significant correlation between CVP and LVEDD/LAD/TR∆P. The hospital mortality rate in this study was 10.0%, although the predicted mortality based on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 58.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CVP is not a reliable marker of left ventricular preload for fluid management during the initial phase of septic shock. Assessment of left ventricular preload, right ventricular overload, and left ventricular contractility using TTE seems to be more informative than the measurement of CVP for fluid resuscitation since some patients developed left ventricular dysfunction and/or right ventricular overload. BioMed Central 2014-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4336121/ /pubmed/25705416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-014-0058-z Text en © Sasai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Sasai, Takako
Tokioka, Hiroaki
Fukushima, Tomihiro
Mikane, Takeshi
Oku, Satoru
Iwasaki, Etsu
Ishii, Mizue
Mieda, Hideyuki
Ishikawa, Tomoki
Minami, Eriko
Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title_full Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title_fullStr Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title_short Reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
title_sort reliability of central venous pressure to assess left ventricular preload for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4336121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25705416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-014-0058-z
work_keys_str_mv AT sasaitakako reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT tokiokahiroaki reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT fukushimatomihiro reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT mikanetakeshi reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT okusatoru reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT iwasakietsu reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT ishiimizue reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT miedahideyuki reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT ishikawatomoki reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock
AT minamieriko reliabilityofcentralvenouspressuretoassessleftventricularpreloadforfluidresuscitationinpatientswithsepticshock