Effects of application of pulse contour cardiac output monitoring technology in early treatment of patients with large area burns

Objective To analyze the changes and relationship of early hemodynamic indexes of patients with large area burns monitored by pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring technology, so as to assess the guiding value of this technology in the treatment of patients with large area burns during shock period. Methods Eighteen patients with large area burns, confirming to the study criteria, were admitted to our unit from May 2016 to May 2017. Pulse contour cardiac output index (PCCI), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI), and extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) of patients were monitored by PiCCO instrument from admission to post injury day (PID) 7, and they were calibrated and recorded once every four hours. The fluid infusion coefficients of patients at the first and second 24 hours post injury were calculated. The blood lactic acid values of patients from PID 1 to 7 were also recorded. The correlations among PCCI, SVRI, and GEDVI as well as the correlation between SVRI and blood lactic acid of these 18 patients were analyzed. Prognosis of patients were recorded. Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance, single sample ttest and Bonferroni correction, Pearson correlation analysis, and Spearman rank correlation analysis. Results (1) There was statistically significant difference in PCCI value of patients from post injury hour (PIH) 4 to 168 (F=7.428, P<0.01). The PCCI values of patients at PIH 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 were (2.4±0.9), (2.6±1.2), (2.2±0.6), (2.6±0.7), (2.8±0.6), and (2.7±0.7) L·min^-1·m^-2, respectively, and they were significantly lower than the normal value 4 L·min^-1·m^-2(t=-3.143, -3.251, -11.511, -8.889, -6.735, -6.976, P<0.05 or P<0.01). At PIH 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, and 96, the PCCI values of patients were (4.9±1.5), (5.7±2.0), (5.9±1.7), (5.5±1.3), (5.3±1.1), and (4.9±1.4) L·min^-1·m^-2, respectively, and they were significantly higher than the normal value (t=2.277, 3.142, 4.050, 4.111, 4.128, 2.423, P<0.05 or P<0.01). The PCCI values of patients at other time points were close to normal value (P>0.05). (2) There was statistically significant difference in SVRI value of patients from PIH 4 to 168 (F=7.863, P<0.01). The SVRI values of patients at PIH 12, 16, 20, 24, and 28 were (2 298±747), (2 581±498), (2 705±780), (2 773±669), and (3 109±1 215) dyn·s·cm^-5·m^2, respectively, and they were significantly higher than the normal value 2 050 dyn·s·cm^-5·m²(t=0.878, 3.370, 2.519, 3.747, 3.144, P<0.05 or P<0.01). At PIH 4, 8, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, and 96, the SVRI values of patients were (1 632±129), (2 012±896), (1 381±503), (1 180±378), (1 259±400), (1 376±483), (1 329±385), (1 410±370), and (1 346±346) dyn·s·cm^-5·m^2, respectively, and they were significantly lower than the normal value (t=-4.593, -0.112, -5.157, -8.905, -7.914, -5.226, -6.756, -6.233, -7.038, P<0.01). The SVRI values of patients at other time points were close to normal value (P>0.05). (3) There was no statistically significant difference in the GEDVI values of patients from PIH 4 to 168 (F=0.704, P>0.05). The GEDVI values of patients at PIH 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 were significantly lower than normal value (t=-3.112, -3.554, -2.969, -2.450, -2.476, P<0.05). The GEDVI values of patients at other time points were close to normal value (P>0.05). (4) There was statistically significant difference in EVLWI value of patients from PIH 4 to 168 (F=1.859, P<0.01). The EVLWI values of patients at PIH 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, and 40 were significantly higher than normal value (t=4.386, 3.335, 6.363, 4.391, 7.513, 5.392, 5.642, P<0.01). The EVLWI values of patients at other time points were close to normal value (P>0.05). (5) The fluid infusion coefficients of patients at the first and second 24 hours post injury were 1.90 and 1.39, respectively. The blood lactic acid values of patients from PID 1 to 7 were 7.99, 5.21, 4.57, 4.26, 2.54, 3.13, and 3.20 mmol/L, respectively, showing a declined tendency. (6) There was obvious negative correlation between PCCI and SVRI (r=-0.528, P<0.01). There was obvious positive correlation between GEDVI and PCCI (r=0.577, P<0.01). There was no obvious correlation between GEDVI and SVRI (r=0.081, P>0.05). There was obvious positive correlation between blood lactic acid and SVRI (r=0.878, P<0.01). (7) All patients were cured except the one who abandoned treatment. Conclusions PiCCO monitoring technology can monitor the changes of early hemodynamic indexes and volume of burn patients dynamically, continuously, and conveniently, and provide valuable reference for early-stage comprehensive treatment like anti-shock of patients with large area burns.