MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403600065 · doi:10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100500

Point of care lactate for differentiating septic shock from hypovolemic shock in non-ICU settings: a prospective observational study

2024· article· en· W4403600065 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Lubaba Shahrin, Monira Sarmin, Irin Parvin, Md. Maksud Al Hasan, Mst. Arifun Nahar, Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayeem Bin Shahid, Shamsun Nahar Shaima, Gazi Md. Salahuddin Mamun, Saila Nasrin, Tahmeed Ahmed, Mohammod Jobayer Chisti

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSchool of MedicineEduCanadaInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, BangladeshGlobal Affairs CanadaBrown University
Mots-clésSeptic shockObservational studyShock (circulatory)MedicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineSepsis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Septic shock and hypovolemic shock are life-threatening illnesses that necessitate immediate recognition and intervention, as they can result in deadly consequences. While the underlying processes may vary, both entities can exhibit hypotension and organ dysfunction. No studies have been conducted on bedside testing to differentiate between these illnesses. Lactate measurement has been established as a viable option for early detection of septic shock. However, its role in diagnosing hypovolemic shock has yet to be evaluated. The aim of the study was to investigate alterations in lactate levels among diarrheal patients with septic shock and hypovolemic shock following the administration of first fluid resuscitation. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in critically ill diarrheal adults aged ≥18 years in the emergency ward in Dhaka Hospital of icddr,b from 21st October 2021 to 31st May 2023 (total 19 months). The enrollment process was operational between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. Diarrheal adults with a diagnosis of sepsis with shock featured with poor peripheral perfusion (characterized by cold periphery and weak or absent pulse and capillary refill time >3 s) or hypotension (characterized by mean arterial pressure <65 mm-Hg) were enrolled as cases and consecutive diarrheal patients without any obvious features of sepsis with hypovolemic shock (due to severe dehydration) comprised the comparison group. POC lactate test was done at hours 0, 1st and 6th by StatStrip Lactate meters (Nova Biomedical, US) to all enrolled patients. For comparison of POC lactate levels, we used paired t-test for comparing the lactate samples drawn at hour 0, hour 1 and 6 with the septic shock and hypovolemic shock group. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to demonstrate the strength of association. The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05108467) and received institutional ethical approval (PR-21097). Findings: Of 435 patients, 135 had septic shock and 141 had hypovolemic shock, rest 41 patient responded with fluid bolus. 25% (34/135) of the people in the septic shock group died whereas there is no mortality in the hypovolemic shock group. The number of patients visiting from outside Dhaka city had more septic shock than from inside were higher in comparison with (55% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). Statistically significant difference was observed between septic shock and hypovolemic shock group for a median POC lactate in 0, 1st and 6th hours with an OR of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.17; p = 0.039); 1.48, (95% CI: 1.28, 1.70; p < 0.001) and 2.36 (95% CI: 1.85, 3.00; p < 0.001), respectively. The gradient of 1st to 2nd sample between septic shock and hypovolemic shock was found to be significantly different (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85; p < 0.001). Interpretation: POC lactate test can detect septic shock by differentiating hypovolemic shock in diarrheal patients. By providing quick, reliable and accurate result this test can help clinicians quickly diagnose and treat time-sensitive condition, like septic shock. Funding: The study was funded by Global Affairs of Canada (GR-01726). The donors had no role in the design, implementation, analysis, data interpretation or writing manuscript, or decision to publish. The corresponding author had access to all data and takes responsibility for the final approval and submission of the manuscript.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,634

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,147
Tête enseignante GPT0,398
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Regional Health - Southeast AsiaMême sujetSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207