Irreversible shock is not irreversible: a new model of massive hemorrhage and resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Existing shock models do not address the patient with massive hemorrhage (> 1 blood volume). Such patients often die from irreversible shock. This model simulates the clinical scenario of massive hemorrhage and resuscitation (MHR) to determine if irreversible shock can be reversed. METHODS: Lewis rats were bled at a rate of 1 estimated blood volume (EBV) per hour for 2 hours with simultaneous infusion of resuscitation mixture (RM) consisting of red blood cells and crystalloid. Blood pressure was maintained at a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 50 mm Hg during the 2 hours of hemorrhage. Hemorrhage was stopped and resuscitation continued for 1 hour until 6, 8, or 10 x EBV of RM was infused. Control animals were subjected to a traditional fixed pressure hemorrhage to MAP of 50 mm Hg for 2 hours followed by resuscitation to MAP > 90 mm Hg for 1 hour with crystalloid alone. Two-week survival was compared using a chi2 test. RESULTS: Control animals (n = 13) were hemorrhaged 48% +/- 5% of EBV and had a mortality rate of 23%. MHR animals had severity and duration of hypotension identical to that of controls but were hemorrhaged 214% +/- 8% of EBV. Despite receiving 390 mL/kg of RM and a final hematocrit of 37%, 14 of 15 animals resuscitated with 6 x EBV died from "irreversible" shock (mortality, 93%; p < 0.001 vs. controls). When very large volumes of resuscitation were used, survival rates improved significantly. The 10 x EBV group received 120% of lost red blood cells and 530 mL/kg of crystalloid and had 64% survival at 2 weeks (p < 0.01 vs. 6 x EBV group). CONCLUSION: This MHR model is much more lethal than a traditional severe hemorrhage model and reproduces the clinical picture of irreversible shock. This irreversible shock can be reversed with very large volumes of resuscitation.

Comparison of gastrointestinal tolerance to two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare gastrointestinal tolerance to two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial, that involved 96 consecutive patients expected to stay in the intensive care unit for > or =3 days and who had no contraindications to enteral feeding. The patients were randomized to either the current protocol (group I; gastric residual volume threshold, 150 mL, optional prokinetic) or proposed feeding protocol (group II; gastric residual volume threshold 250 mL, mandatory prokinetic). Gastrointestinal intolerance was recorded as episodes of high gastric residual volume, emesis, or diarrhea. The time to reach the goal rate of feeding and the percentage of nutritional requirements received during the study period were also recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen of 36 patients (19/36 = 0.53) in group I had one or more episodes of high gastric residual volume, compared with 10 of 44 patients (10/44 = 0.23) in group II (p < .005). There was no statistical difference between the two protocols with regards to emesis, diarrhea, or the total episodes of intolerance. The patients in group II reached their goal rates on average in 15 hours and received 76% of their nutritional requirements, compared with 22 hours and 70% in group I; however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of enteral feeding intolerance was reduced by using a gastric residual volume of 250 mL along with the mandatory use of prokinetics. The study showed a trend of improved enteral nutrition provision and reduced the time to reach the goal rate in group II. These improvements support the adoption of the proposed feeding protocol for critically ill patients.