scholarly journals Skin mottling score and capillary refill time to assess mortality of septic shock since pre-hospital setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Jouffroy ◽  
Anastasia Saade ◽  
Jean Pierre Tourtier ◽  
Papa Gueye ◽  
Emmanuel Bloch-Laine ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Castro ◽  
Eduardo Kattan ◽  
Giorgio Ferri ◽  
Ronald Pairumani ◽  
Emilio Daniel Valenzuela ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Persistent hyperlactatemia has been considered as a signal of tissue hypoperfusion in septic shock patients, but multiple non-hypoperfusion-related pathogenic mechanisms could be involved. Therefore, pursuing lactate normalization may lead to the risk of fluid overload. Peripheral perfusion, assessed by the capillary refill time (CRT), could be an effective alternative resuscitation target as recently demonstrated by the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial. We designed the present randomized controlled trial to address the impact of a CRT-targeted (CRT-T) vs. a lactate-targeted (LAC-T) fluid resuscitation strategy on fluid balances within 24 h of septic shock diagnosis. In addition, we compared the effects of both strategies on organ dysfunction, regional and microcirculatory flow, and tissue hypoxia surrogates. Results Forty-two fluid-responsive septic shock patients were randomized into CRT-T or LAC-T groups. Fluids were administered until target achievement during the 6 h intervention period, or until safety criteria were met. CRT-T was aimed at CRT normalization (≤ 3 s), whereas in LAC-T the goal was lactate normalization (≤ 2 mmol/L) or a 20% decrease every 2 h. Multimodal perfusion monitoring included sublingual microcirculatory assessment; plasma-disappearance rate of indocyanine green; muscle oxygen saturation; central venous-arterial pCO2 gradient/ arterial-venous O2 content difference ratio; and lactate/pyruvate ratio. There was no difference between CRT-T vs. LAC-T in 6 h-fluid boluses (875 [375–2625] vs. 1500 [1000–2000], p = 0.3), or balances (982[249–2833] vs. 15,800 [740–6587, p = 0.2]). CRT-T was associated with a higher achievement of the predefined perfusion target (62 vs. 24, p = 0.03). No significant differences in perfusion-related variables or hypoxia surrogates were observed. Conclusions CRT-targeted fluid resuscitation was not superior to a lactate-targeted one on fluid administration or balances. However, it was associated with comparable effects on regional and microcirculatory flow parameters and hypoxia surrogates, and a faster achievement of the predefined resuscitation target. Our data suggest that stopping fluids in patients with CRT ≤ 3 s appears as safe in terms of tissue perfusion. Clinical Trials: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03762005 (Retrospectively registered on December 3rd 2018)


2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 958-964 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Ait-Oufella ◽  
N. Bige ◽  
P. Y. Boelle ◽  
C. Pichereau ◽  
M. Alves ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 088506662098258
Author(s):  
Garrick Mok ◽  
Ariel Hendin ◽  
Peter Reardon ◽  
Michael Hickey ◽  
Sara Gray ◽  
...  

Sepsis is a common disease process encountered by physicians. Sepsis can lead to septic shock, which carries a hospital mortality rate in excess of 40%. Although the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and normalization of lactate, these endpoints do not necessarily result in tissue perfusion in states of shock. While MAP and lactate are commonly used markers in resuscitation, clinicians may be able to improve their resuscitation by broadening their assessment of the microcirculation, which more adequately reflects tissue perfusion. As such, in order to achieve a successful resuscitation, clinicians must optimize both macrocirculatory (MAP, cardiac output) and microcirculatory (proportion of perfused vessels, lactate, mottling, capillary refill time) endpoints. This review will summarize various macrocirculatory and microcirculatory markers of perfusion that can be used to guide the initial resuscitation of patients with sepsis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 104135
Author(s):  
Bo-Yan Yeh ◽  
Yen-Lin Chao ◽  
Yu-Sheng Chen ◽  
Huang-Ping Yu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document