胸腔内血容量指数在感染性休克患者液体管理中的应用

目的 探讨胸腔内血容量指数(ITBVI)在感染性休克患者液体管理中的应用价值.方法 采用前瞻性临床观察研究方法,将入住重症监护病房(ICU)的33例感染性休克患者分为两组.ITBVI组17例患者接受脉搏指示连续心排血量(PiCCO)监测,以ITBVI作为液体管理的指导指标;对照组16例患者以中心静脉压(CVP)作为液体管理的指导指标.对比两组患者治疗1 d和3 d时的急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统I(APACHE I)评分、感染相关器官功能衰竭评分系统(SOFA)评分、血管活性药物评分,以及补液72 h内两组患者的液体管理数据.结果 ①ITBVI组3 d时APACHE I、SOFA和血管活性药物评分(分)均较1 d时显著下降21.3±6.2比25.4±7.2,6.1±3.4比9.0±3.5,5.0(0,8.0)比20.0(8.0,35.0),均P＜0.01];而对照组则均无显著变化.②虽然ITBVI组48～72 h液体出量(ml)大于对照组(2 421±868比1 721±934,P=0.039),但ITBVI组与对照组0～72 h的液体出入量和平衡量(ml)比较差异均无统计学意义(入量:9 918±137比10 529±1 331,出量:6 035±1 739比5 827±2 897,平衡量:3 882±1 889比4 703±2 813,均P＞0.05).③在快速补液试验中,ITBVI组与对照组患者除0～6 h胶体液入量ml:250(125,500)比250(69,250)]差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)外,其余时段液体入量(ml)ITBVI组均比对照组高0～6 h晶体液:250(150,250)比125(105,125),6～72 h晶体液:125(125,250)比100(56,125),0～72 h晶体液:250(125,250)比125(75,125),6～72 h胶体液:125(106,250)比75(50,125),0～72 h胶体液:200(125,250)比100(50,125),均P＜0.01].结论 与以CVP指导相比,用ITBVI指导感染性休克患者的液体管理显示,3 d时患者病情较1 d改善,这种改善可能得益于对血容量状态的准确判断和适当的快速补液速度.

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

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 strategydirected by central venous pressure (CVP)]were enrolled into control group. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation I (APACHE I ) 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, APACHE I , SOFA and vasopressor score were significantly lower in ITBVI group compared with that of in 1 day of treatment21.3±6. 2 vs. 25. 4±7.2, 6. L±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 739vs. 5 827±2 897, fluid balance: 3 882±1 889 vs. 4 703±2 813, all P＞0. 05). ③Comparing 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 groupsml: 250 (125, 500) vs. 250 (69,250), P＞0. 05], more fluid intake (ml) was found in ITBVI group0 - 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.