Role of Combining Peripheral with Sublingual Perfusion on Evaluating Microcirculation and Predicting Prognosis in Patients with Septic Shock

• Main Authors: Pan Pan, Da-Wei Liu, Long-Xiang Su, Huai-Wu He, Xiao-Ting Wang, Chao Yu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer 2018-01-01
• Series: Chinese Medical Journal
• Subjects: Microcirculation; Sepsis; Shock
• Online Access: http://www.cmj.org/article.asp?issn=0366-6999;year=2018;volume=131;issue=10;spage=1158;epage=1166;aulast=Pan

Background: Measurement of general microcirculation remains difficult in septic shock patients. The peripheral perfusion index (PI) and sublingual microcirculation monitoring are thought to be possible methods. This study was performed to determine whether assessing microcirculation by PI and a new parameter, proportion of perfusion vessel change rate (△PPV) from sublingual microcirculation monitoring, can be associated with patients' outcome. Methods: A prospective observational study was carried out, including 74 patients with septic shock in a mixed intensive care unit. Systemic hemodynamic variables were obtained at T0 and 6 h after (T6). PI and sublingual microcirculation indicators were obtained using a bedside monitor and a sidestream dark-field device, respectively. The t-test, analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with the Hanley-McNeil test, survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test were used to statistical analysis. Results: Systemic hemodynamics and microcirculation data were obtained and analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether the first 6 h lactate clearance (LC) was ≥20%; PI and △PPV were lower at T6 in the LC <20% group compared with LC ≥20% (PI: 1.52 [0.89, 1.98] vs. 0.79 [0.44, 1,81], Z = −2.514, P = 0.012; △PPV: 5.9 ± 15.2 vs. 17.9 ± 20.0, t = −2.914, P = 0.005). The cutoff values of PI and △PPV were 1.41% and 12.1%, respectively. The cutoff value of the combined indicators was 1.379 according to logistic regression. Area under the curve demonstrated 0.709 (P < 0.05), and the sensitivity and specificity of using combined indicators were 0.622 and 0.757, respectively. Based on the PI and △PPV cutoff, all the participants were divided into the following groups: (1) high PI and high △PPV group, (2) high PI and low △PPV group, (3) low PI and high △PPV group, and (4) low PI and low △PPV group. The highest Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (14.5 ± 2.9) was in the low PI and low △PPV group (F = 13.7, P < 0.001). Post hoc tests showed significant differences in 28-day survival rates among these four groups (log rank [Mantel-Cox], 20.931; P < 0.05). Conclusion: PI and △PPV in septic shock patients are related to 6 h LC, and combining these two parameters to assess microcirculation can predict organ dysfunction and 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock.