Why the study?
Does an early increase in heart rate predict 48-hour mortality in a fluid-resuscitated rat model of fecal peritonitis?
Does an early increase in heart rate predict 48-hour mortality in a fluid-resuscitated rat model of fecal peritonitis?
In a clinically relevant rat model of sepsis, an early heart rate increase of ≥50 bpm accurately predicts 48-hour mortality, providing a potential tool for early prognostication and targeted mechanistic studies.
Early HR elevations predict death in septic rats; leaves open whether telemetry aids outcome prediction in human sepsis.
BACKGROUND: In sepsis, early outcome prediction would allow investigation of both adaptive mechanisms underlying survival and maladaptive mechanisms resulting in death. The aim of this study was to test whether early changes in heart rate monitored by telemetry could predict outcome in a long-term rat model of fecal peritonitis. METHODS: Male Wistar rats (n = 24) were instrumented with a central venous line for administration of fluids, antibiotics and analgesics. A telemetry transmitter continuously collected electrocardiogram signals. Sepsis was induced by intraperitoneal injection of fecal slurry, and the animals were observed for 48 h. Additional animals underwent arterial cannulation at baseline (n = 9), 4 h (n = 16), or 24 h (n = 6) for physiology and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: 48-h mortality was 33% (8/24), with all deaths occurring between 4 and 22 h. Septic animals were characterized by lethargy, fever, tachycardia, positive blood cultures, and elevated cytokine (IL-1, IL-6, TNF alpha) levels. An increase in heart rate ≥ 50 bpm during the first 4 h of sepsis predicted death with sensitivity and specificity of 88% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this long-term rat sepsis model, prognostication could be made early by telemetry-monitored changes in heart rate. This model enables the study of underlying mechanisms and the assessment of any differential effects of novel therapies in predicted survivors or non-survivors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rudiger et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: