Prognostic value of baseline carotid blood flow in critically ill children with septic shock.
<h4>Background and aim</h4>Hemodynamic monitoring and cardiac output (CO) assessment in the ICU have been trending toward less invasive methods. Carotid blood flow (CBF) was suggested as a candidate for CO assessment. The present study aimed to test the value of carotid artery ultrasound...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d3a75aa883e6427dafdb4f9d01d17c96 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Background and aim</h4>Hemodynamic monitoring and cardiac output (CO) assessment in the ICU have been trending toward less invasive methods. Carotid blood flow (CBF) was suggested as a candidate for CO assessment. The present study aimed to test the value of carotid artery ultrasound analysis in prediction of mortality in pediatric patients with septic shock.<h4>Methodology/principal finding</h4>Forty children with septic shock were included in the study. Upon admission, patients were subjected to careful history taking and thorough clinical examination. The consciousness level was assessed by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Laboratory assessment included complete blood count, C-reactive protein, arterial blood gases, serum electrolytes, and liver and kidney function tests. Electrical cardiometry was used to evaluate hemodynamic parameters. Patients were also subjected to transthoracic 2-D echocardiography. CBF was evaluated using GE Vivid S5 ultrasound device through dedicated software. At the end of study, 14 patients (35.0%) died. It was found that survivors had significantly higher CBF when compared non-survivors [median (IQR): 166.0 (150.0-187.3) versus 141.0 (112.8-174.3), p = 0.033]. In addition, it was noted that survivors had longer ICU stay when compared with non-survivors [16.5 (9.8-31.5) versus 6.5 (3.0-19.5) days, p = 0.005]. ROC curve analysis showed that CBF could significantly distinguish survivors from non-survivors [AUC (95% CI): 0.3 (0.11-0.48), p = 0.035] (Fig 2). Univariate logistic regression analysis identified type of shock [OR (95% CI): 28.1 (4.9-162.4), p<0.001], CI [OR (95% CI): 0.6 (0.43-0.84), p = 0.003] and CBF [OR (95% CI): 0.98 (0.96-0.99), p = 0.031]. However, in multivariate analysis, only type of shock significantly predicted mortality.<h4>Conclusions</h4>CBF assessment may be a useful prognostic marker in children with septic shock. |
|---|