在血液紧张的情况下,晶体液复苏可减少治疗延迟并改善收缩压

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Mark T Yost, Matt Driban, Fanny Nadia Dissak Delon, M. Mbianyor, Thompson Kinge, Richard Njock, Daniel N. Nkusu, J. Tsiagadigui, Melissa Carvalho, R. Oke, Alain Chichom-Mefire, Catherine Juillard, S. A. Christie
{"title":"在血液紧张的情况下,晶体液复苏可减少治疗延迟并改善收缩压","authors":"Mark T Yost, Matt Driban, Fanny Nadia Dissak Delon, M. Mbianyor, Thompson Kinge, Richard Njock, Daniel N. Nkusu, J. Tsiagadigui, Melissa Carvalho, R. Oke, Alain Chichom-Mefire, Catherine Juillard, S. A. Christie","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2023-001290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives We analyzed resuscitation practices in Cameroonian patients with trauma as a first step toward developing a context-appropriate resuscitation protocol. We hypothesized that more patients would receive crystalloid-based (CB) resuscitation with a faster time to administration than blood product (BL) resuscitation. Methods We included patients enrolled between 2017 and 2019 in the Cameroon Trauma Registry (CTR). Patients presenting with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mm Hg and active bleeding) were categorized as receiving CB, BL, or no resuscitation (NR). We evaluated differences between cohorts with the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. We compared time to treatment with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results Of 9635 patients, 403 (4%) presented with hemorrhagic shock. Of these, 278 (69%) patients received CB, 39 (10%) received BL, and 86 (21%) received NR. BL patients presented with greater injury severity (Highest Estimated Abbreviated Injury Scale (HEAIS) 4 BL vs 3 CB vs 1 NR, p<0.001), and lower median hemoglobin (8.0 g/dL BL, 11.4 g/dL CB, 10.6 g/dL NR, p<0.001). CB showed greater initial improvement in SBP (12 mm Hg CB vs 9 mm Hg BL vs 0 NR mm Hg, p=0.04) compared with BL or no resuscitation, respectively. Median time to treatment was lower for CB than BL (12 vs 131 min, p<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for injury severity found no association between resuscitation type and mortality (CB adjusted OR (aOR) 1.28, p=0.82; BL aOR 1.05, p=0.97). Conclusions CB was associated with faster treatment, greater SBP elevation, and similar survival compared with BL in Cameroonian patients with trauma with hemorrhagic shock. In blood-constrained settings, treatment delays associated with blood product transfusion may offset the physiologic benefits of an early BL strategy. CB prior to definitive hemorrhage control in this resource-limited setting may be a necessary strategy to optimize perfusion pressure. Level of evidence and study type III, retrospective study.","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crystalloid resuscitation is associated with decreased treatment delays and improved systolic blood pressures in a blood-constrained setting\",\"authors\":\"Mark T Yost, Matt Driban, Fanny Nadia Dissak Delon, M. Mbianyor, Thompson Kinge, Richard Njock, Daniel N. Nkusu, J. Tsiagadigui, Melissa Carvalho, R. Oke, Alain Chichom-Mefire, Catherine Juillard, S. A. Christie\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/tsaco-2023-001290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives We analyzed resuscitation practices in Cameroonian patients with trauma as a first step toward developing a context-appropriate resuscitation protocol. We hypothesized that more patients would receive crystalloid-based (CB) resuscitation with a faster time to administration than blood product (BL) resuscitation. Methods We included patients enrolled between 2017 and 2019 in the Cameroon Trauma Registry (CTR). Patients presenting with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mm Hg and active bleeding) were categorized as receiving CB, BL, or no resuscitation (NR). We evaluated differences between cohorts with the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. We compared time to treatment with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results Of 9635 patients, 403 (4%) presented with hemorrhagic shock. Of these, 278 (69%) patients received CB, 39 (10%) received BL, and 86 (21%) received NR. BL patients presented with greater injury severity (Highest Estimated Abbreviated Injury Scale (HEAIS) 4 BL vs 3 CB vs 1 NR, p<0.001), and lower median hemoglobin (8.0 g/dL BL, 11.4 g/dL CB, 10.6 g/dL NR, p<0.001). CB showed greater initial improvement in SBP (12 mm Hg CB vs 9 mm Hg BL vs 0 NR mm Hg, p=0.04) compared with BL or no resuscitation, respectively. Median time to treatment was lower for CB than BL (12 vs 131 min, p<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for injury severity found no association between resuscitation type and mortality (CB adjusted OR (aOR) 1.28, p=0.82; BL aOR 1.05, p=0.97). Conclusions CB was associated with faster treatment, greater SBP elevation, and similar survival compared with BL in Cameroonian patients with trauma with hemorrhagic shock. In blood-constrained settings, treatment delays associated with blood product transfusion may offset the physiologic benefits of an early BL strategy. CB prior to definitive hemorrhage control in this resource-limited setting may be a necessary strategy to optimize perfusion pressure. Level of evidence and study type III, retrospective study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2023-001290\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2023-001290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 我们分析了喀麦隆创伤患者的复苏实践,以此作为制定适合具体情况的复苏方案的第一步。我们假设,与血液制品(BL)复苏相比,更多患者将在更短时间内接受晶体类(CB)复苏。方法 我们纳入了喀麦隆创伤登记处(CTR)在 2017 年至 2019 年期间登记的患者。出现失血性休克(收缩压 (SBP) <100 mm Hg 且有活动性出血)的患者被分为接受 CB、BL 或无复苏(NR)。我们对连续变量采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验,对分类变量采用 Fisher's 精确检验,以评估不同组群之间的差异。我们用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验比较了治疗时间。结果 在9635名患者中,有403人(4%)出现失血性休克。其中,278 名患者(69%)接受了 CB 治疗,39 名患者(10%)接受了 BL 治疗,86 名患者(21%)接受了 NR 治疗。BL患者的损伤严重程度更高(最高估计简略损伤量表(HEAIS)4 BL vs 3 CB vs 1 NR,p<0.001),血红蛋白中位数更低(8.0 g/dL BL,11.4 g/dL CB,10.6 g/dL NR,p<0.001)。CB 与 BL 或不复苏相比,SBP 的初始改善幅度更大(CB 12 mm Hg vs BL 9 mm Hg vs NR 0 mm Hg,p=0.04)。CB 的中位治疗时间低于 BL(12 分钟 vs 131 分钟,P<0.01)。根据损伤严重程度调整的多变量逻辑回归发现,复苏类型与死亡率之间没有关联(CB 调整 OR (aOR) 1.28,p=0.82;BL aOR 1.05,p=0.97)。结论 在喀麦隆的失血性休克外伤患者中,CB 与 BL 相比,治疗速度更快,SBP 升高幅度更大,存活率相似。在血液紧张的情况下,与输血相关的治疗延迟可能会抵消早期BL策略的生理益处。在这种资源有限的情况下,在明确控制出血之前进行 CB 可能是优化灌注压的必要策略。证据级别和研究类型 III,回顾性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Crystalloid resuscitation is associated with decreased treatment delays and improved systolic blood pressures in a blood-constrained setting
Objectives We analyzed resuscitation practices in Cameroonian patients with trauma as a first step toward developing a context-appropriate resuscitation protocol. We hypothesized that more patients would receive crystalloid-based (CB) resuscitation with a faster time to administration than blood product (BL) resuscitation. Methods We included patients enrolled between 2017 and 2019 in the Cameroon Trauma Registry (CTR). Patients presenting with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mm Hg and active bleeding) were categorized as receiving CB, BL, or no resuscitation (NR). We evaluated differences between cohorts with the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. We compared time to treatment with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results Of 9635 patients, 403 (4%) presented with hemorrhagic shock. Of these, 278 (69%) patients received CB, 39 (10%) received BL, and 86 (21%) received NR. BL patients presented with greater injury severity (Highest Estimated Abbreviated Injury Scale (HEAIS) 4 BL vs 3 CB vs 1 NR, p<0.001), and lower median hemoglobin (8.0 g/dL BL, 11.4 g/dL CB, 10.6 g/dL NR, p<0.001). CB showed greater initial improvement in SBP (12 mm Hg CB vs 9 mm Hg BL vs 0 NR mm Hg, p=0.04) compared with BL or no resuscitation, respectively. Median time to treatment was lower for CB than BL (12 vs 131 min, p<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for injury severity found no association between resuscitation type and mortality (CB adjusted OR (aOR) 1.28, p=0.82; BL aOR 1.05, p=0.97). Conclusions CB was associated with faster treatment, greater SBP elevation, and similar survival compared with BL in Cameroonian patients with trauma with hemorrhagic shock. In blood-constrained settings, treatment delays associated with blood product transfusion may offset the physiologic benefits of an early BL strategy. CB prior to definitive hemorrhage control in this resource-limited setting may be a necessary strategy to optimize perfusion pressure. Level of evidence and study type III, retrospective study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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