Comparative study on the application of PICCO and CVP technologies in severe infection patients
Objective To compare the application effects of pulse-induced contour cardiac output(PICCO)and central venous pressure(CVP)technologies in severe infection patients,providing a reference for treatment plan selection.Methods A to-tal of 35 severe infection patients monitored by CVP technology in the ICU of our hospital from January to December 2021 were designated as the control group.Another 34 severe infection patients monitored using PICCO technology in the ICU of our hospital from January 2022 to August 2023 were designated as the study group.Both groups underwent fluid resuscita-tion based on CVP or PICCO monitoring.Physiological indicators,prognosis,and 30-day mortality rates were compared,and hemodynamic parameter changes in the study group were analyzed.Results No statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups in repeated measures analysis of variance for heart rate(HR),mean arterial pressure(MAP),central venous oxygen saturation(ScvO2),CVP,and arterial blood lactate(Lac)in terms of group or interaction effects(P＞0.05).However,significant differences were found in the time effect(P＜0.05).Before treatment,no signifi-cant differences were observed in HR,MAP,ScvO2,CVP,and Lac levels between the two groups(P＞0.05).After 12 hours,2 days,and 4 days of treatment,HR and Lac levels in both groups were significantly lower than before treatment,while MAP,ScvO2,and CVP levels were significantly higher than before treatment(P＜0.05).In the study group,the general end-diastolic volume index(GEDVI),cardiac index(CI),and extravascular lung water index(EVLWI)showed sig-nificant changes before treatment and at 12 hours,2 days,and 4 days post-treatment(P＜0.05).With the progression of treatment,GEDVI and CI levels significantly increased,while EVLWI levels significantly decreased in pairwise comparisons(P＜0.05).The study group had shorter ICU stay,duration of mechanical ventilation,and vasopressor usage time than the control group,with statistically significant differences(P＜0.05).No significant difference was observed in 30-day mortali-ty rates between the two groups(P=0.710).Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant difference in overall sur-vival rates within 30 days of treatment between the study group(91.18％)and the control group(85.71％)(x2=0.559,P=0.455).Conclusion Both PICCO and CVP technologies effectively guide fluid resuscitation in severe infection patients.However,PICCO technology offers better improvement in hemodynamics and disease prognosis than CVP technology.
万方数据
维普
