The role of pulse indicator continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) and critical care ultrasound in volume status assessment during fluid resuscitation for and prognosis of septic shock patients.

Objectives: To investigate whether pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) and critical care ultrasound are highly consistent in volume status assessment during fluid resuscitation for septic shock patients and analyze their influence on the prognosis of septic shock. Methods: Eighty septic shock patients treated by Huizhou Central People's Hospital during December 2018 and December 2020 were included and divided into a study group and a control group by the presence of volume responsiveness, with each group having 40 patients. The control group was subject to PiCCO-guided fluid resuscitation therapy, while the study group was given fluid resuscitation therapy guided by critical care ultrasound. Cardiac output, cardiac function, and catheter-related infection (CRI) were documented for intergroup comparison to confirm whether these two techniques were consistent with each other regarding their effects on resuscitation for and prognosis of septic shock patients. Results: Mechanical ventilation duration (MVD) and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LoS) were significantly shorter in the study group when compared with the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05, respectively). In terms of blood pressure parameters, the two groups did not differ greatly in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and central venous pressure (CVP) before resuscitation (p>0.05, respectively); at 6h(six hour) after resuscitation, DBP, MAP, SBP, and CVP were substantially increased in both groups as compared with the pre-resuscitation levels (all p<0.05), but the differences between the two groups lacked statistical significance (all p>0.05). Comparing urine volume and degrees of positive fluid balance at 6 h and 12 h after resuscitation, drastic increases in urine volume and positive fluid balance were observed in both groups at 12 h as compared with at 6 h (all p<0.05); nevertheless, the two groups showed no statistically significant difference in urine volume and positive fluid balance at 6 h or 12 h (p>0.05, respectively). With regards to prognosis, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of cases of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), dosage of vasoactive agents and 28-d mortality rate (all p>0.05). However, the incidence of CRI was markedly lower in the study group (0/40) as compared with the control group (5/40), and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusions: Both PiCCO and critical care ultrasound can help achieve favorable outcomes from resuscitation for septic shock patients. Compared with PiCCO, critical care ultrasound monitoring appears to be more effective in preventing CRI and reducing MVD and ICU LoS, thereby easing patients' medical burden.