Cargando…
Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model
BACKGROUND: The gut has been hypothesized to be a protagonist tissue in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) for the past three decades. Gastric reactance (XL) is a potential perfusion marker derived from gastric impedance spectroscopy (GIS), which is an emerging tool through which living tiss...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674824/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36400981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00476-1 |
_version_ | 1784833233812193280 |
---|---|
author | Godinez-Garcia, María M. Soto-Mota, Adrian Catrip, Jorge Gaitan, Ruben Lespron, Ma del C. Molina, Francisco J. Falcón, Miguel A. Aranda, Alberto Tena, Carlos A. Zamudio, Pedro Briseño, Ivan Alvarez, Rolando Guillen, Yazmin |
author_facet | Godinez-Garcia, María M. Soto-Mota, Adrian Catrip, Jorge Gaitan, Ruben Lespron, Ma del C. Molina, Francisco J. Falcón, Miguel A. Aranda, Alberto Tena, Carlos A. Zamudio, Pedro Briseño, Ivan Alvarez, Rolando Guillen, Yazmin |
author_sort | Godinez-Garcia, María M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The gut has been hypothesized to be a protagonist tissue in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) for the past three decades. Gastric reactance (XL) is a potential perfusion marker derived from gastric impedance spectroscopy (GIS), which is an emerging tool through which living tissue can be continuously measured to determine its pathophysiological evolution. This study aimed to compare the performance of XL [positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC)] against commonly used perfusion markers before and during hypovolemic shock in swine subjects. METHODS: Prospective, controlled animal trial with two groups, control group (CG) N = 5 and shock (MAP ≤ 48 mmHg) group (SG) N = 16. Comparison time points were defined as T-2 (2 h before shock), T-1 (1 h before shock), T0 (shock), T1 (1 h after shock), and T2 (2 h after shock). Shock severity was assessed through blood gases, systemic and hemodynamic variables, and via histological examination for assessing inflammation-edema and detachment in the gastric mucosa. Macroscopic assessment of the gastric mucosa was defined in five levels (0—normal mucosa, 1—stippling or epithelial hemorrhage, 2—pale mucosa, 3—violet mucosa, and 4—marmoreal mucosa). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of perfusion markers and XL were calculated to identify optimal cutoff values and their individual ability to predict hypovolemic shock. RESULTS: Comparison among the CG and the SG showed statistically significant differences in XL measurements at T-1, T0, T1, and T2, while lactate showed statistically significant differences until T1 and T2. Statistically significant differences were detected in mucosa class (p < 0.001) and in inflammation-edema in the gastric body and the fundus (p = 0.021 and p = 0.043). The performance of the minimum XL value per subject per event (XL_Min) was better (0.81 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.96, 0.93 ≤ PPV ≤ 1.00, 0.45 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.83) than maximum lactate value (Lac_Max) per subject per event (0.29 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.82, 0.82 ≤ PPV ≤ 0.91, 0.24 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.82). Cutoff values for XL_Min show progressive increases at each time point, while cutoff values for Lac_Max increase only at T2. CONCLUSIONS: XL proved to be an indirect and consistent marker of inadequate gastric mucosal perfusion, which shows significant and detectable changes before commonly used markers of global perfusion under the hypovolemic shock conditions outlined in this work. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-022-00476-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9674824 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96748242022-11-20 Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model Godinez-Garcia, María M. Soto-Mota, Adrian Catrip, Jorge Gaitan, Ruben Lespron, Ma del C. Molina, Francisco J. Falcón, Miguel A. Aranda, Alberto Tena, Carlos A. Zamudio, Pedro Briseño, Ivan Alvarez, Rolando Guillen, Yazmin Intensive Care Med Exp Research Articles BACKGROUND: The gut has been hypothesized to be a protagonist tissue in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) for the past three decades. Gastric reactance (XL) is a potential perfusion marker derived from gastric impedance spectroscopy (GIS), which is an emerging tool through which living tissue can be continuously measured to determine its pathophysiological evolution. This study aimed to compare the performance of XL [positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC)] against commonly used perfusion markers before and during hypovolemic shock in swine subjects. METHODS: Prospective, controlled animal trial with two groups, control group (CG) N = 5 and shock (MAP ≤ 48 mmHg) group (SG) N = 16. Comparison time points were defined as T-2 (2 h before shock), T-1 (1 h before shock), T0 (shock), T1 (1 h after shock), and T2 (2 h after shock). Shock severity was assessed through blood gases, systemic and hemodynamic variables, and via histological examination for assessing inflammation-edema and detachment in the gastric mucosa. Macroscopic assessment of the gastric mucosa was defined in five levels (0—normal mucosa, 1—stippling or epithelial hemorrhage, 2—pale mucosa, 3—violet mucosa, and 4—marmoreal mucosa). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of perfusion markers and XL were calculated to identify optimal cutoff values and their individual ability to predict hypovolemic shock. RESULTS: Comparison among the CG and the SG showed statistically significant differences in XL measurements at T-1, T0, T1, and T2, while lactate showed statistically significant differences until T1 and T2. Statistically significant differences were detected in mucosa class (p < 0.001) and in inflammation-edema in the gastric body and the fundus (p = 0.021 and p = 0.043). The performance of the minimum XL value per subject per event (XL_Min) was better (0.81 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.96, 0.93 ≤ PPV ≤ 1.00, 0.45 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.83) than maximum lactate value (Lac_Max) per subject per event (0.29 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.82, 0.82 ≤ PPV ≤ 0.91, 0.24 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.82). Cutoff values for XL_Min show progressive increases at each time point, while cutoff values for Lac_Max increase only at T2. CONCLUSIONS: XL proved to be an indirect and consistent marker of inadequate gastric mucosal perfusion, which shows significant and detectable changes before commonly used markers of global perfusion under the hypovolemic shock conditions outlined in this work. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-022-00476-1. Springer International Publishing 2022-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9674824/ /pubmed/36400981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00476-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Godinez-Garcia, María M. Soto-Mota, Adrian Catrip, Jorge Gaitan, Ruben Lespron, Ma del C. Molina, Francisco J. Falcón, Miguel A. Aranda, Alberto Tena, Carlos A. Zamudio, Pedro Briseño, Ivan Alvarez, Rolando Guillen, Yazmin Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title | Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title_full | Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title_fullStr | Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title_short | Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
title_sort | comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674824/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36400981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00476-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT godinezgarciamariam comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT sotomotaadrian comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT catripjorge comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT gaitanruben comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT lespronmadelc comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT molinafranciscoj comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT falconmiguela comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT arandaalberto comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT tenacarlosa comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT zamudiopedro comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT brisenoivan comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT alvarezrolando comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel AT guillenyazmin comparisonofgastricreactancewithcommonlyusedperfusionmarkersinaswinehypovolemicshockmodel |