Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-3 (3)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Alteration of skin perfusion in mottling area during septic shock 
Mottling score has been reported to be a strong predictive factor during septic shock. However, the pathophysiology of mottling remains unclear.
In patients admitted in ICU for septic shock, we measured on the same area the mean skin perfusion by laser Doppler, the mottling score, and variations of both indices between T1 (6 hours after vasopressors were started) and T2 (24 hours later).
Fourteen patients were included, SAPS II was 56 [37–71] and SOFA score at T1 was 10 [7–12]. The mean skin surface area analyzed was 4108 ± 740 mm2; 1184 ± 141 measurements were performed over each defined skin surface area. Skin perfusion was significantly different according to mottling score and decreased from 37 [31–42] perfusion units (PUs) for a mottling score of [0–1] to 22 [20–32] PUs for a mottling score of [2–3] and 23 [16–28] for a score of [4–5] (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.05). We analyzed skin perfusion changes during resuscitation in each patient and together with mottling score variations between T1 and T2 using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Among the 14 patients included, mottling score increased (worsened) in 5 patients, decreased (improved) in 5 patients, and remained stable in 4 patients. Baseline skin perfusion at T1 was arbitrarily scored 100%. Mean skin perfusion significantly decreased in all the patients whose mottling score worsened from 100% baseline to 63.2 ± 10.7% (P = 0.001), mean skin perfusion significantly increased in all patients whose mottling score improved from 100% baseline to 172.6 ± 46.8% (P = 0.001), and remained stable in patients whose mottling score did not change (100.5 ± 6.8%, P = 0.95).
We have shown that mottling score variations and skin perfusion changes during septic shock resuscitation were correlated, providing additional evidence that mottling reflects skin hypoperfusion.
PMCID: PMC3848827  PMID: 24040941
Septic shock; Microcirculation; Mottling; Intensive care medicine
2.  Comparison of superior vena cava and femoroiliac vein pressure according to intra-abdominal pressure 
Previous studies have shown a good agreement between central venous pressure (CVP) measurements from catheters placed in superior vena cava and catheters placed in the abdominal cava/common iliac vein. However, the influence of intra-abdominal pressure on such measurements remains unknown.
We conducted a prospective, observational study in a tertiary teaching hospital. We enrolled patients who had indwelling catheters in both superior vena cava (double lumen catheter) and femoroiliac veins (dialysis catheter) and into the bladder. Pressures were measured from all the sites, CVP, femoroiliac venous pressure (FIVP), and intra-abdominal pressure.
A total of 30 patients were enrolled (age 62 ± 14 years; SAPS II 62 (52–76)). Fifty complete sets of measurements were performed. All of the studied patients were mechanically ventilated (PEP 3 cmH20 (2–5)). We observed that the concordance between CVP and FIVP decreased when intra-abdominal pressure increased. We identified 14 mmHg as the best intra-abdominal pressure cutoff, and we found that CVP and FIVP were significantly more in agreement below this threshold than above (94% versus 50%, P = 0.002).
We reported that intra-abdominal pressure affected agreement between CVP measurements from catheter placed in superior vena cava and catheters placed in the femoroiliac vein. Agreement was excellent when intra-abdominal pressure was below 14 mmHg.
PMCID: PMC3424143  PMID: 22742667
Intensive unit care; Central venous pressure; Superior vena cava; Femoroiliac vena; Intra-abdominal pressure
3.  Beneficial effects of loxapine on agitation and breathing patterns during weaning from mechanical ventilation 
Critical Care  2010;14(3):R86.
Interruption of sedation during weaning from mechanical ventilation often leads to patient agitation because of withdrawal syndrome. We tested the short-term efficacy and tolerance of loxapine in this situation.
Nineteen mechanically ventilated patients with marked agitation after sedation withdrawal were included. Three agitation scales, the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), the Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS), and the Ramsay and physiological variables (respiratory rate, airway occlusion pressure during the first 0.1 second of inspiration (P0.1), heart rate and systolic arterial blood pressure) were recorded before and after loxapine administration.
Loxapine dramatically improved all agitation scores (RASS and MASS decreased from 2 ± 0 to -1.1 ± 2.3, and 5.4 ± 0.5 to 2.7 ± 1.6, respectively; Ramsay increased from 1.0 ± 0 to 3.5 ± 1.5, 60 minutes after loxapine administration, P < 0.05 for all scores) as well as P0.1 (6 ± 4.2 to 1.8 ± 1.8 cm H2O; P < 0.05) and respiratory rate (from 31.2 ± 7.2 to 23.4 ± 7.8; P < 0.05) without hemodynamic adverse events. No side effects occurred. Sixteen (84%) patients were successfully managed with loxapine, sedation was resumed in two others, and one patient self-extubated without having to be reintubated.
Loxapine was safe and effective in treating agitation in a small group of mechanically ventilated patients and improved respiratory physiologic parameters, enabling the weaning process to be pursued. A multicenter trial is under way to confirm these promising results.
PMCID: PMC2911718  PMID: 20459867

Results 1-3 (3)