 |
 |

Survivors' and Nonsurvivors' Responses to Dextran 40Hemodynamic and Oxygen Transport Changes in Critically Ill Patients
Hiroharu Matsuda, MD;
William C. Shoemaker, MD
Arch Surg. 1975;110(3):301-305.
Abstract
 |  |
Cardiorespiratory effects of dextran 40 administration were measured and compared retrospectively in 74 surviving and 73 nonsurviving critically ill patients. In the preinfusion control period, the survivors had higher mean arterial pressures and blood flow with lesser blood volume deficits. Dextran significantly improved pressure, blood flow, blood volume, oxygen transport, and derived calculations in both groups, but the average cardiorespiratory responses to dextran were somewhat greater in nonsurvivors than in survivors. About two thirds of the patients responded to dextran with significantly increased oxygen consumption (P <.05), suggesting that this agent improved oxygen transport by its rheologic effects on the microcirculation. The cardiorespiratory effects of dextran were slightly greater in the patients who ultimately died; nevertheless, the salutary cardiorespiratory response did not reverse the clinical course in nonsurvivors, whose perfusion defect apparently had reached irreversible proportions prior to the administration of the drug.
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York. Dr. Matsuda is with the Department of Surgery, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, and was a Visiting Scientist with the Department of Surgery at Mount Sinai. Dr. Shoemaker is currently with the Department of Surgery, Harbor General Hospital, Torrance, Calif, and the UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Oct 16, 1974.
Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, Harbor General Hospital, 1000 W Carson St, Torrance, CA 90509 (Dr. Shoemaker).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Wet, dry or something else?
Bellamy
Br J Anaesth 2006;97:755-757.
FULL TEXT
|