切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

第五届中国出版政府奖音像电子网络出版物奖提名奖

中国科技核心期刊

中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊

中华重症医学电子杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 06 ›› Issue (02) : 187 -192. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-1537.2020.02.017

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

肝颈返流试验对感染性休克患者容量反应性的评估
王元元1, 汪明灯1,(), 沈继龙1, 许铎1, 陈亚利1, 赵慧静1, 周情太1   
  1. 1. 215153 江苏苏州,南京医科大学附属苏州科技城医院重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2020-01-03 出版日期:2020-05-28
  • 通信作者: 汪明灯
  • 基金资助:
    苏州市产业技术创新专项(SYSD2017064); 苏州高新区医疗卫生科技计划重点项目(2019Z004); 南京医科大学科技发展基金(NMUB2018220); 苏州科技城医院科研预研基金项目(2019D03)

Value of hepatocervical reflux test in assessment of volume reactivity in patients with septic shock

Yuanyuan Wang1, Mingdeng Wang1,(), Jilong Shen1, Duo Xu1, Yali Chen1, Huijing Zhao1, Qingtai Zhou1   

  1. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Suzhou Science & Technology Town Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou 215153, China
  • Received:2020-01-03 Published:2020-05-28
  • Corresponding author: Mingdeng Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Mingdeng Email:
引用本文:

王元元, 汪明灯, 沈继龙, 许铎, 陈亚利, 赵慧静, 周情太. 肝颈返流试验对感染性休克患者容量反应性的评估[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(02): 187-192.

Yuanyuan Wang, Mingdeng Wang, Jilong Shen, Duo Xu, Yali Chen, Huijing Zhao, Qingtai Zhou. Value of hepatocervical reflux test in assessment of volume reactivity in patients with septic shock[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2020, 06(02): 187-192.

目的

探讨肝颈返流试验(HRT)评估感染性休克患者容量反应性中的临床应用价值。

方法

采用前瞻性队列研究评估感染性休克患者的容量反应性,以脉搏指示持续心排量测定(PiCCO)联合容量负荷试验(VE)获取的心输出量变异度(ΔCOVE)为金标准,将ΔCOVE≥15%定义为液体反应阳性,反之为液体反应阴性。所有患者进行HRT和VE,获取心率、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、心输出量(CO)及每搏输出量(SV)等血液动力学参数,其中包括HRT 15 s和60 s的数据,并与ΔCOVE相比,获得相关性指标。以受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析HRT后ΔCOHRT、ΔSVHRT对容量反应性的评估价值。

结果

60例感染性休克患者中,液体反应阳性组36例,液体反应阴性组24例,2组患者一般临床资料比较无统计学意义。与HRT前基线值1相比较,液体反应阳性组中HRT后15 s血液动力学参数CVP、CO、SV显著增加[CVP:(8.9±2.1)cmH2O vs(7.8±1.9)cmH2O,CO:(3.7±0.7)L/min vs(3.4±0.7)L/min,SV:(30.2±6.2)ml vs(27.2±6.7)ml,P<0.05],而液体反应阴性组无显著变化(P>0.05)。HRT 15 s与60 s相比,心率、MAP、CVP、CO及SV差异均无统计学意义。VE试验中,液体反应阳性组VE后MAP、CVP、CO及SV较补液前基线值2有所增加[MAP:(75.7±7.3)mmHg vs(72.0±7.6)mmHg,CVP:(9.1±1.5)cmH2O vs (8.0±1.8)cmH2O,CO:(3.8±0.7)L/min vs (3.5±0.6)L/min,SV:(30.2±5.6)ml vs (27.2±6.7)ml,P<0.05]。相关性分析显示,ΔCOHRT、ΔSVHRT与ΔCOVE具有相关性(r=0.82、0.83,P均<0.01)。此外,HRT中,以ΔCOHRT=11.7%为阈值,预测容量反应性的曲线下面积为0.95±0.03(95%CI:0.903~1.00,P<0.01),敏感度为91.7%,特异度为87.5%;以ΔSVHRT=12.7%为阈值,预测容量反应性的曲线下面积为0.942±0.03(95%CI:0.884~0.999,P<0.01),敏感度为83.3%,特异度为91.7%。

结论

HRT利用自体输液原理判断容量反应性,是一种无创、操作便捷、较可靠的评估感染性休克患者容量反应性的新方法,值得临床推广应用。

Objective

To assess the value of the hepatocervical reflux test (HRT) in assessing volume responsiveness in patients with septic shock.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed to assess the volume status of patients with septic shock. Using the cardiac output variability (ΔCOVE) obtained by pulse-directed continuous cardiac output measurement (PiCCO) combined with volume expansion (VE) as the gold standard, ΔCOVE≥15% was defined as positive fluid responsiveness, otherwise it was defined as negative fluid responsiveness. All the patients underwent the VE test and HRT test to obtain flow dynamics parameters, including heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV) (HRT 15 s and 60 s data were included), which were compared with ΔCOVE metallographic to obtain correlated indexes. The value of HRT-induced ΔCOHRT and ΔSVHRT to predict volume responsiveness was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results

Of the 60 patients with septic shock, 36 had positive fluid responsiveness and 24 had negative fluid responsiveness. There was no significant difference in the general clinical data between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the baseline value 1 before HRT, the positive fluid responsiveness group had significantly increased CVP, CO, and SV after HRT 15 s [CVP (8.9±2.1) cmH2O vs (7.8±1.9) cmH2O, CO (3.7±0.7) L/min vs (3.4±0.7) L/min, SV (30.2±6.2) mL vs (27.2±6.7) mL, P<0.05], but the negative fluid responsiveness group had no significant change (P>0.05). There were no significant difference in HR, MAP, CVP, CO and SV between HRT 60 s with HRT 15 s. In the VE test, compared with baseline value 2 before rehydration, MAP, CVP, CO, and SV in the positive fluid responsiveness group significantly increased after rehydration [MAP: (75.7±7.3) mmHg vs (72.0±7.6) mmHg, CVP: (9.1±1.5) cmH2O vs (8.0±1.8) cmH2O, CO: (3.8±0.7) L/min vs (3.5±0.6) L/min, SV: (30.2±5.6) ml vs (27.2±6.7) ml, P<0.05]. Correlation analysis showed that ΔCOHRT and ΔSVHRT after VE showed a correlation with ΔCOVE (r=0.82 and 0.83, respectively, P<0.01). What′s more, in the HRT, with ΔCOHRT=11.7% as the threshold, the area under the curve of HRT for predicting volume reactivity was 0.95±0.03 (95%CI: 0.903~1.00, P<0.01), with a sensitivity of 91.7% and specificity of 87.5%; with ΔSVHRT=12.7% as the threshold, the area under the curve was 0.942±0.03 (95% CI: 0.884~0.999, P<0.01), with a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 91.7%.

Conclusion

The HRT is a new method for assessing the volume reactivity by using the principle of autologous infusion. It is a non-invasive, easy-to-use, and reliable method for assessing the volume status of patients with septic shock, which is worthy of clinical application.

表1 液体反应阳性组、液体反应阴性组感染性休克患者的一般资料比较
表2 液体反应阳性组、液体反应阴性组感染性休克患者VE和HRT前后血液动力学参数比较(±s
图1 预测容量反应性的受试者工作特征曲线
1
李刚,魏冯宁,张国强, 等. 被动抬腿试验联合经胸超声心动图指导脓毒性休克患者早期液体复苏的临床意义[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2019, 31(4): 413-417.
2
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: recent advances[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2018, 24(3): 190-195.
3
Pickett JD, Bridges E, Kritek PA, et al. Passive Leg-Raising and Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness: Systematic Review[J]. Crit Care Nurse, 2017, 37(2): 32-47.
4
胡翔宇,李力,郝晓晔, 等. 被动抬腿试验联合超声心动图评价感染性休克患者的容量反应性[J]. 中华危重病急救医学2019, 31(5): 619-622.
5
付江泉,王迪芬. 被动抬腿试验在容量复苏管理中的价值[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2016, 2(1): 63-67.
6
Vistisen ST, Enevoldsen J, Scheeren TW. Can Passive Leg Raising Be Considered the Gold Standard in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness[J]? Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2017, 195(8): 1075-1076.
7
Mesquida J, Gruartmoner G, Ferrer R. Passive leg raising for assessment of volume responsiveness: a review[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2017, 23(3): 237-243.
8
王元元,钮金英,沈继龙, 等. 超声测定颈动静脉截面积比值评估容量反应的研究[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2018, 27(12): 1393-1397.
9
Aliverti A, Bovio D, Fullin I, et al. The abdominal circulatory pump[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(5): e5550.
10
Pullen RL Jr. Assessing for hepatojugular reflux[J]. Nursing, 2006, 36(2): 28.
11
Vaidya Y, Dhamoon AS. Hepatojugular Reflux. StatPearls [M]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2019.
12
Georges D, de Courson H, Lanchon R, et al. End-expiratory occlusion maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in the intensive care unit: an echocardiographic study[J]. Crit Care, 2018, 22(1):32.
13
Bednarczyk JM, Fridfinnson JA, Kumar A, et al. Incorporating dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness into goal-directed therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Crit Care Med, 2017, 45(9): 1538-1545.
14
张北源,祁慧,顾勤. 体循环平均充盈压与中心静脉压差变化对脓毒性休克患者液体反应性的评价[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2019, 5(2): 145-150..
15
黄惠斌,刘光云,许彪, 等. 感染性休克患者容量负荷试验后反应性评估时间的选择[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2019, 31(4): 407-412.
16
Rameau A, de With E, Boerma EC. Passive leg raise testing effectively reduces fluid administration in septic shock after correction of non-compliance to test results[J]. Ann Intensive Care, 2017, 7(1): 2.
17
沈剑,安友仲. 静脉回流曲线在休克患者血流动力学干预中的应用[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2019, 31(5): 641-645.
18
孙昀,鹿中华,余维丽, 等. 超声监测联合被动抬腿试验评估容量反应性[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2017, 26(11): 1300-1306.
19
杜鹏飞,姜东辉,胡敏红. 容量反应性在循环衰竭患者中的研究进展[J]. 中华内科杂志, 2019, 58(3): 229-232.
20
林擎天. 普通外科临床解剖学 [M]. 上海:上海交通大学出版社, 2016, 3234-3235.
21
Omar HR, Guglin M. Clinical and prognostic significance of positive hepatojugular reflux on discharge in acute heart failure: insights from the ESCAPE Trial[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2017: 5734749.
22
Baldivia GC, Napoli JVMP, Motta JME, et al. Is hepatojugular reflux a good predictor of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction[J]? Rev Assoc Med Bras, 2019, 65(5): 592-595.
23
张楠,张红,倪诤, 等. 插入式腹部提压CPR患者颈动脉血流的超声监测[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2018, 30(7): 691-694.
[1] 刘虎, 王瑞婷, 吕静静, 王斌. 经食管超声评价右美托咪定对不同年龄段腹腔镜胆囊切除全身麻醉患者心输出量的影响[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(02): 199-206.
[2] 沈珏, 刘文生, 唐江锋, 单丽红, 柳开忠. 呼气末屏气试验联合肱动脉峰流速预测机械通气-休克患者容量反应性的价值[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(05): 345-350.
[3] 邹以席, 刘金松, 陈密, 黄方炯. 呼气末正压容量试验评估不停跳冠状动脉旁路移植术患者容量反应性的临床价值[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(02): 85-90.
[4] 乔杰, 唐中权, 郭换珍, 路遥, 张璐. 失代偿期肝硬化患者发生感染性休克影响因素[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(02): 99-104.
[5] 吕慧, 周瑗, 赵奇, 田锐, 王瑞兰. 致死性社区获得性鲍曼不动杆菌肺炎一例报告[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(04): 609-611.
[6] 徐丹斌, 苏龙翔, 巴音查汗·博然衣, 王璐, 木塔力甫·买合木提, 王静静, 王彩虹, 王舸楠, 隆云. P(cv-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 ratio在感染性休克早期目标导向性复苏中的潜在价值[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(01): 23-30.
[7] 方一, 吕迪, 周海东, 陈远卓, 孙肖肖, 庄育刚. 心肺联合超声与PICCO对急危重症患者监测结果的相关性[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2021, 07(02): 110-114.
[8] 邢学忠, 高勇, 王海军, 曲世宁, 黄初林, 张昊. 脉搏指示连续心输出量测定指导脓毒症休克治疗的Meta分析[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2021, 07(01): 43-47.
[9] 余愿, 刘宏. 急性心肌梗死体外膜氧合支持期间合并感染性休克一例[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(03): 353-356.
[10] 张倩, 胡振杰, 刘丽霞. 主动脉流速时间积分变异度对重症脓毒症患者液体复苏的指导[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(01): 77-85.
[11] 高明, 周华, 郭喆, 吴圣, 许媛. 呼气末闭塞试验预测容量反应性价值的系统回顾及Meta分析:基于国际数据库的结果[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2019, 05(01): 39-45.
[12] 吕清泉, 顾小花, 陈齐红, 吕应鸣, 郑瑞强. 氢化可的松在肺部感染致感染性休克中应用的前瞻性临床研究[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2018, 04(02): 141-146.
[13] 史源. 血流动力学导向的感染性休克治疗一例[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2018, 04(02): 215-218.
[14] 丁维柱, 陈齐红. 1小时集束治疗对感染性休克患者的预后影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(10): 826-829.
[15] 何艺施, 伍卓强, 邬家明, 陈汉威, 杨鑫. 床旁超声介入联合抗生素治疗急重症细菌性肝脓肿的临床分析[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2022, 10(04): 418-421.
阅读次数
全文


摘要