{"title":"急性循环衰竭患者被动抬腿与气动抬腿的平均体压比较。","authors":"Panu Boontoterm, P. Wacharasint, P. Fuengfoo","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-642363/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, there is no study explore the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables.Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were included in this analysis. All patients were performed both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimized carry-on effect, the patients were divided into 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) the patients who received PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) the patients who received PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups were waited for washing period before performed 2nd procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedure. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedure.Results: There was no difference in baseline characteristics and no carry-on effect between 2 groups of patients. Compared to baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. Compared to PC, PLR more increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001). PC, but not PLR also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) .Conclusion: In patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR more increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO than PC.","PeriodicalId":76963,"journal":{"name":"AACN clinical issues in critical care nursing","volume":"879 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Mean Systemic Pressure in Patients with Acute Circulatory Failure Receiving Passive Leg Raising vs. Pneumatic Leg Compression.\",\"authors\":\"Panu Boontoterm, P. Wacharasint, P. Fuengfoo\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-642363/v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, there is no study explore the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables.Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were included in this analysis. All patients were performed both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimized carry-on effect, the patients were divided into 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) the patients who received PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) the patients who received PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups were waited for washing period before performed 2nd procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedure. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedure.Results: There was no difference in baseline characteristics and no carry-on effect between 2 groups of patients. Compared to baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. Compared to PC, PLR more increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001). PC, but not PLR also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) .Conclusion: In patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR more increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO than PC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AACN clinical issues in critical care nursing\",\"volume\":\"879 25\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AACN clinical issues in critical care nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-642363/v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AACN clinical issues in critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-642363/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:静脉回流驱动压(VR)由平均体压(Pms)和中心静脉压(CVP)决定。虽然被动抬腿(PLR)和气动抬腿(PC)可以增加VR,但没有研究探讨这两种方法对Pms和VR相关血流动力学变量的影响。方法:对40例急性循环衰竭患者进行分析。所有患者均行PLR和PC,并在基线和手术后立即测量Pms、CVP、平均动脉压(MAP)、心输出量(CO)、VR阻力(RVR)和全身血管阻力(SVR)。为减少携带效应,将患者按手术顺序分为两组,1)先接受PLR后接受PC (PLR-first), 2)先接受PC后接受PLR (PC-first)。两组均待洗涤期后行第2道手术。主要观察结果为PLR和PC手术的Pms差异。次要结果是PLR和PC之间CVP、MAP、CO、RVR和SVR的差异。结果:两组患者基线特征无差异,无携带效应。与基线相比,PLR和PC均显著增加Pms、CVP、MAP和CO。与PC相比,PLR增加Pms(9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001)、CVP(4.5±1.2 vs 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001)、MAP(22.5±5.6 vs 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001)和CO(1.5±0.5 vs 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001)。结论:在急性循环衰竭患者中,Pms、CVP、MAP、CO的升高明显高于PLR,而PLR较PLR显著升高RVR(16±27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001)和SVR(78.4±7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001)。
Comparison of Mean Systemic Pressure in Patients with Acute Circulatory Failure Receiving Passive Leg Raising vs. Pneumatic Leg Compression.
Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, there is no study explore the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables.Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were included in this analysis. All patients were performed both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimized carry-on effect, the patients were divided into 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) the patients who received PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) the patients who received PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups were waited for washing period before performed 2nd procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedure. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedure.Results: There was no difference in baseline characteristics and no carry-on effect between 2 groups of patients. Compared to baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. Compared to PC, PLR more increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001). PC, but not PLR also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) .Conclusion: In patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR more increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO than PC.