Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2021 Mar;33(3):334-337. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20201019-00678.
OBJECTIVE: To observe the application effect of respiratory stepwise management in patients with septic shock combined with acute lung injury (ALI).
METHODS: 100 patients with septic shock combined with ALI were selected as the research objects in Haikou Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Medical College of Central South University from January 2018 to June 2020. Fifty patients were given endotracheal intubation or invasive ventilation on the basis of conventional treatment (conventional treatment group). According to the respiratory situation and blood gas, 50 patients were given systematic respiratory support step-by-step treatment according to the principle of simple to complex, and appropriate and scientific respiratory support was given according to the sequence from unarmed to mechanical (respiratory stepwise management group). The differences of cardiac index (CI), central venous pressure (CVP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), extravascular lung water index (EVLWI), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, the therapeutic effects of the two groups were evaluated, and the resuscitation effect, postoperative complications rate, tracheotomy rate, utilization rate of invasive ventilator of the two groups were recorded.
RESULTS: After treatment, CI, CVP, EVLWI, PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 levels of the two groups were significantly higher than before treatment, MAP and PaCO2 levels were significantly lower than before treatment; MAP and PaCO2 levels after treatment of the respiratory stepwise management group were significantly lower than those of the conventional treatment group [MAP (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 68.2±7.0 vs. 74.4±6.8, PaCO2 (mmHg): 37.82±4.05 vs. 41.76±4.59], the levels of EVLWI, PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 in the respiratory stepwise management group were significantly higher than those in the conventional treatment group [EVLWI (mL/kg): 15.34±3.03 vs. 13.64±3.32, PaO2 (mmHg): 84.44±4.83 vs. 79.03±5.54, PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg): 452.42±51.32 vs. 431.73±50.03, all P < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in CI or CVP after treatment between respiratory stepwise management group and conventional treatment group [CI (mL×s-1×m-2): 70.01±21.67 vs. 66.68±18.34, CVP (mmHg): 11.1±3.2 vs. 12.3±3.2, both P > 0.05]. Compared with the conventional treatment group, the average recovery time of the respiratory stepwise management group was earlier (hours: 2.04±0.54 vs. 4.29±0.20, P < 0.05), the stable breathing time was shorter (hours: 3.07±0.22 vs. 5.36±0.35, P < 0.05), the total effective rate and the success rate of recovery were significantly improved [86.0% (43/50) vs. 60.0% (30/50), 94.0% (47/50) vs. 74.0% (37/50), both P < 0.05], the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) and airway complications were significantly reduced [14.0% (7/50) vs. 32.0% (16/50), 12.0% (6/50) vs. 40.0% (20/50), both P < 0.05], and the tracheotomy rate and the utilization rate of invasive ventilator were significantly reduced [8.0% (4/50) vs. 28.0% (14/50), 30.0% (15/50) vs. 60.0% (30/50), both P < 0.05].
CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory stepwise management can effectively improve the resuscitation effect of septic shock patients with ALI, improve cardiopulmonary function, blood gas index and the treatment efficiency, effectively reduce the incidence of iatrogenic trauma and complications.