• Yu Tao, Wu Jingyi, Jiang Xiaogan, Lu Weihua, and Jin Xiaoju.
• Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2015 Nov 1; 27 (11): 885-9.

ObjectiveTo study the effects of esmolol on fluid responsiveness and hemodynamic parameters in patients with septic shock.MethodsA prospective self-control study was conducted. Fifteen septic shock patients undergoing mechanical ventilation admitted to Department of Critical Care Medicine of Yijishan Hospital from January 2015 to August 2015 were enrolled. All patients enrolled in this study were given the treatment based on American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) Consensus 2012. Esmolol was intravenously injected at a beginning rate of 6 mg · kg⁻¹ · h⁻¹, and then the dose was adjusted to reduce heart rate by 10% from baseline. The changes in hemodynamic and systemic oxygen metabolism indexes were monitored by pulse indicator continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) before and 2 hours after the esmolol administration, and the fluid responsiveness was evaluated by stroke volume variation (SVV). SVV ≥ 10% was considered to be a positive fluid responsiveness.ResultsIn 15 patients, 9 were male and 6 female, with an age of 65 ± 16. Among them 10 patients suffered from pulmonary infection, and 5 patients with abdominal infection. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score was 21 ± 9; sequential organ failure score (SOFA) was 8 ± 4.28-day mortality was 40.0%. SVV was significantly decreased after esmolol infusion as compared with baseline [(14 ± 5)% vs. (17 ± 7)%, t = 2.400, P = 0.031]. Heart rate [HR (bpm): 100 ± 4 vs. 112 ± 8, t = 8.161, P = 0.000], cardiac output [CO (L/min): 6.13 ± 1.45 vs. 7.88 ± 1.82, t = 4.046, P = 0.001], cardiac index [CI (mL · s⁻¹ · m⁻²): 51.51 ± 11.00 vs. 66.18 ± 11.48, t = 4.131, P = 0.001], stroke volume index [SVI (mL/m²): 31.0 ± 6.4 vs. 35.4 ± 6.5, t = 2.577, P = 0.020], the maximum rate of left ventricular pressure rise [dp/dt max (mmHg/s): 927 ± 231 vs. 1,194 ± 294, t = 3.775, P = 0.002], global ejection fraction (GEF: 0.21 ± 0.05 vs. 0.24 ± 0.06, t = 3.091, P = 0.008), cardiac function index (CFI: 5.03 ± 1.37 vs. 6.59 ± 1.92, t = 4.769, P = 0.000) showed significant decrease during esmolol infusion. On the other hand, central venous pressure [CVP (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 9 ± 3 vs. 8 ± 3, t = -3.617, P = 0.003], diastolic blood pressure (DBP, mmHg: 69 ± 15 vs. 66 ± 13, t = -2.656, P = 0.019), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI, kPa · s · L⁻¹ · m⁻²: 206.8 ± 69.8 vs. 206.8 ± 69.8, t = -3.255, P = 0.006 ) were significantly increased during esmolol infusion. No significant difference was found in systolic blood pressure [SBP (mmHg): 120 ± 25 vs. 123 ± 18, t = 0.678, P = 0.509], mean arterial pressure [MAP (mmHg): 86 ± 18 vs. 85 ± 14, t = -0.693, P = 0.500], global end diastolic volume index [GEDVI (mL/m²): 614 ± 84 vs. 618 ± 64, t = 0.218, P = 0.830], extravascular lung water index [EVLWI (mL/kg): 5.99 ± 1.50 vs. 5.73 ± 1.14, t = -1.329, P = 0.205], central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂: 0.711 ± 0.035 vs. 0.704 ± 0.048, t = -0.298, P = 0.773), arterial blood lactate [Lac (mmol/L): 3.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.0 ± 0.4, t = -0.997, P = 0.345], and difference of central venous-arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure [Pcv-aCO₂ (mmHg): 4.1 ± 0.9 vs. 4.7 ± 0.5, t = 1.445, P = 0.182] as compared with those before esmolol treatment.ConclusionHeart rate control with esmolol infusion may reduce fluid responsiveness, cardiac function, heart rate and cardiac output without adverse effect on systemic perfusion in septic shock patients.

22 keywords...

hide…