Invasive hemodynamic monitoring for fluid management in septic shock patients

Ö. Taşkın, A. Daş, Canan Balcı
{"title":"Invasive hemodynamic monitoring for fluid management in septic shock patients","authors":"Ö. Taşkın, A. Daş, Canan Balcı","doi":"10.51271/kmj-00106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim\nSepsis is still one of the most common causes of death, despite advances in treatment and technologies. Invasive monitoring in sepsis can improve survival. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of hemodynamic monitoring in the fluid treatment of patients with septic shock.\nMaterial and Method\nForty septic shock patients were divided into two groups. Group I (n = 20) was monitored with central venous pressure, and Group II (n = 20) with a cardiac output device (EV1000). Arterial blood gases were analyzed four times daily for the groups, and lactate values, diuresis status, need for dialysis, and inotrope need was recorded. For Group I, the central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure values were recorded for group II, cardiac output, cardiac index, stroke volume, stroke volume index, and mean arterial pressure values.\nResults\nThere was a significant difference between the mean arterial pressures of the groups on the 1st and 2nd days (p = 0.034 and p = 0.026, respectively). In Group II, mean arterial pressures were higher on days 1 and 2. There was no significant difference between the other data recorded.\nConclusion\nWe observed no significant difference between central venous pressure monitoring and invasive monitoring in septic shock patient follow-up.","PeriodicalId":369732,"journal":{"name":"Kastamonu Medical Journal","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kastamonu Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51271/kmj-00106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim Sepsis is still one of the most common causes of death, despite advances in treatment and technologies. Invasive monitoring in sepsis can improve survival. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of hemodynamic monitoring in the fluid treatment of patients with septic shock. Material and Method Forty septic shock patients were divided into two groups. Group I (n = 20) was monitored with central venous pressure, and Group II (n = 20) with a cardiac output device (EV1000). Arterial blood gases were analyzed four times daily for the groups, and lactate values, diuresis status, need for dialysis, and inotrope need was recorded. For Group I, the central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure values were recorded for group II, cardiac output, cardiac index, stroke volume, stroke volume index, and mean arterial pressure values. Results There was a significant difference between the mean arterial pressures of the groups on the 1st and 2nd days (p = 0.034 and p = 0.026, respectively). In Group II, mean arterial pressures were higher on days 1 and 2. There was no significant difference between the other data recorded. Conclusion We observed no significant difference between central venous pressure monitoring and invasive monitoring in septic shock patient follow-up.
有创血流动力学监测在脓毒性休克患者体液管理中的应用
尽管在治疗和技术方面取得了进步,但败血症仍然是最常见的死亡原因之一。脓毒症有创监测可提高生存率。在本研究中,我们旨在比较血流动力学监测在脓毒性休克患者输液治疗中的疗效。材料与方法将40例感染性休克患者分为两组。I组(n = 20)采用中心静脉压监测,II组(n = 20)采用心输出量仪(EV1000)监测。每天分析各组动脉血气4次,记录乳酸值、利尿状态、透析需求和肌力需求。第一组记录中心静脉压、平均动脉压值,第二组记录心输出量、心脏指数、每搏量、每搏量指数、平均动脉压值。结果两组患者术后第1天、第2天平均动脉压比较,差异有统计学意义(p = 0.034、p = 0.026)。在II组,平均动脉压在第1天和第2天较高。其他记录的数据之间没有显著差异。结论在脓毒性休克患者随访中,中心静脉压监测与有创监测无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信