Application value of bedside ultrasound for assessing volume responsiveness in patients with septic shock

Abstract

Background/Aim. Septic shock is a serious complication that can occur as consequence of infection. As the effective circulating blood volume is of vital importance in these cases, it is very important to keep track of this parameter constantly. The aim of this study was to explore the application value of bedside ultrasound for assessing volume responsiveness in patients with septic shock. Methods. A total of 102 patients with septic shock were selected. The volume load (VL) test was performed, and based on the results of the test, the patients were divided into the response group that had an increase in stroke volume (?SV ) ? 15% and non-response group (?SV < 15%). Hemodynamic parameters were compared before and after the test. The correlation between ?SV and each hemodynamic index was explored by Pearson?s analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted. Results. There were 54 patients in response group and 48 patients in non-response group. Before VL test, retro-hepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) distensibility index (?IVC1), respiratory variation in IVC index (?IVC2), respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity index (?VpeakAO), respiratory variation in brachial artery blood flow peak velocity index (?VpeakBA) and respiratory variation in common femoral artery blood flow peak velocity index (?VpeakCFA) were all higher in response group than those in non-response group (p < 0.05), while heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) were similar (p > 0.05). After VL test, response group had significantly decreased HR, ?IVC1, ?IVC2, ?VpeakAO, ?VpeakBA and ?VpeakCFA, and increased MAP and CVP (p < 0.05), while non-response group had significantly decreased CVP (p < 0.05) and no significant changes in other indices. ?IVC1, ?IVC2, ?VpeakAO, ?VpeakBA and ?VpeakCFA significantly correlated with ?SV ( r= 0.589, r = 0.647, r = 0.697, r = 0.621, r = 0.766, p < 0.05), but there was no correlation between CVP and ?SV (r = -0.345, p > 0.05). The areas under the curves of ?IVC1, ?IVC2, ?VpeakAO, ?VpeakBA and ?VpeakCFA for predicting volume responsiveness were 0.839, 0.858, 0.878, 0.916 and 0.921, respectively, which were significantly larger than that of CVP (0.691), indicating higher sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion. Bedside ultrasound monitoring of ?IVC, ?VpeakAO, ?VpeakBA and ?VpeakCFA can better assess the volume responsiveness in patients with septic shock.