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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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