Tag Archive: lactate


This case is part of my “Sepsis week” at Broome Docs.  Lets say this case happpens in January, just after the first big rain for the wet season.

58 yo Aboriginal man, presents to triage at ED complaining of “cold sick” [flu] symptoms. Has been feeling hot, sweating and had a non-productive cough intermittently for a week.  No good localising symptoms.

Obs:  P= 110,   temp = 38.9,    RR = 20,   BP 110/50,   SpO2 = 97% RA   BGL = 17.7 mmol

PMHx:  type 2 DM, untreated.   Hypertension,  gout and  recently investigated for PR bleeding = diverticulosis, old rheumatic heart disease – mild MR on ECHO.  “Drinks a bit”

Meds = perindopril / hydrocholothiazide,  allopurinol, aspirin.

Examination:  Sitting up, smiling.  ENT – normal, chest clear, systolic murmur c/w MR, abdomen soft, though mildly tender in the RUQ.  No loin tenderness.  No skin lesions. Alert and quiet, happy to sit…  Urinalysis = gluc 3+, protein 2+, blood +

This man gets a triage score of 3 – which means he should be seen within 30 minutes.  So after waiting his allotted 30 minutes he collapses in the ED waiting room and gets carried into the Resus bay….

Obs: pulse = 150 thready, BP = 70/30,  RR = 35 shallow,  Spo2 unrecordable, GCS = 8ish.  Groaning, localising to pain.   A bedside BSL = 20.3 mmol.

A portable CXR is done, and an ABG is drawn on 15L via NRB

pH = 7.19

PaO2 = 84

PaCO2 = 29

HCO3 = 12

Lactate = 6.3

BE  - 14

Here are the questions?  I will give it a day or two for answers to come in from the readers…

Q1:  What is your next move?

Q2:  What bugs do you need to cover to ensure you give adequate early empirical antibiotics?

Q3:  If you chose to intubate this man – what ventilator settings would you go for?

 

 

Apologies to the smart ones reading this – but I have been trying to explain this concept to my students for a while – so I thought I would share.

Shock: this is defined by hypoperfusion of the tissues resulting in insufficient substrates (oxygen, sugar etc) for aerobic cellular respiration.

The good news is that evolution has supplied us with a back up plan in the event of “inadequate substrate for aerobic respiration” – namely anaerobic respiration – neat eh!  But there is a limit to this – you eventually need to get back to Aerobic metabolism, clear the toxic byproducts of anaerobic respiration and repay the oxygen debt.

Ok that is the technical bit done.  Now onto the clinical application of this science.

In order to maintain tissue perfusion (and fuel / oxygen supply) you need to have blood passing through those little terminal arterioles / capillaries at a rate fast enough to keep up with the demands of the tissue – this can vary also.

Here we meet the problem – we (clinicians) have got no good direct way of measuring the flow or demand in those little vessels.  At the bedside we can just guess as to what is going on.  Unfortunately our instincts for this “guess work” are a bit skewed and that is the point of this post – we need to develop better instincts here.  So this is how I do it.

The blood pressure is an important piece of information – very important – but it is not the only player when it comes to working out the perfusion of the important organs.

Problem is – we all cut our teeth on relatively stable, healthy patients who have good physiological reserve and are operating towards the centre of the comfort zone of perfusion.  In these patients the BP is probably a good proxy for “perfusion”.  BUT – in the patient who is sick (ie. the one where you really want to know what is going on ) the physics are not ‘normal’ – you need more info and here the instinct needs to be developed.

Ok, some boring mathematics now :-

Cardiac output (CO) =   HR   x   stroke volume (SV)                  and              BP   =   CO  x   systemic vascular resistance (SVR)  or  CO  = BP  / SVR

So therefore:     HR  x  SV    =     BP  /  SVR.    Yep, I just tried to reduce CV physiology to 4 numbers. Not always so simple – but its a start.

You can read HR and BP off of the monitor, or even do it manually!

The SV  - hard to measure clinically – you can palp the radial pulse and guess its ‘volume’, you can ask the patient if they have some chronic cardiac disease / cardiomyopathy / IHD.  Or you can pick up an ECHO probe and eyeball it, or ask an ECHO tech to give you a number (LVEF).  Knowing that the preload is good certainly helps – so look at the IVC – is it collapsing?

So that just leaves the SVR – and this is tough.  In a sick patient – you cannot interpret the BP or guess the cardiac output without having some idea about the SVR.  So how can we measure this?  Look at the patient – are they red, flushed or pale and white.  Feel the hands and radial pulse – are they cool and thready or bounding and warm?  Urine output – if this is low – there is a good chance the normotensive patient has a high SVR.  Or you can get a fancy monitor which gives you a number – SVV (stroke volume variation) or Oesophageal Doppler etc.  None of these are perfect.

So once you have guessed the patient’s SVR you are in a position to interpret the BP and make an estimate of the perfusing  cardiac output / cardiac index  (NB: the cardiac index sounds impressive, but it is just the CO divided by the patient’s body surface area.  ie. big people need more CO to perfuse their body than little people)

Confused yet?  Lets look at a few common clinical scenarios to illustrate these points.  Also to look at the uses and abuses of inotropic meds in the hypotensive patient.

If you give a decent slug of propofol to anybody over about 60 – they will probably crash their BP. Is this a bad thing? well yes, but not as bad as you might think.

The propofol causes a loss of SVR by relaxing all the peripheral vessels.  So both the BP and SVR have fallen – the CO is proabably not crashing as much as the BP would suggest.  Of course if the propofool renders the heart bradycardic and negative inotropy reduces the ability of the heart to compensate – this is not great.  But any Anaesthetic doc will tell you – if you give them a whiff od metaraminol / phenylepherine  – the BP comes up quick.  And as soon as the surgeon inflicts pain – they settle quickly.  So here is an example of ‘relative’ hypotension – sure it is low – but so is the SVR – so it isn’t so bad.

This is usually a vasoplegic state – all those inflammatory cytokines cause a decrease in SVR,  the vascular bed expands – making the patient “relatively hypovolemic”.  There is a fall in CO due to poor venous return – so the BP drops as does the perfusing pressure – and shock occurs.  In some (maybe 15%) they get myocardial depression form the toxins of sepsis and also therfore suffer from “pump failure as well as the other mechanisms of shock at play.

So – for sepsis the rule of thumb is :-  give a heap of fluids – more than you think.  Give 2 litres and ask questions later.  If they remain hypotensive / acidotic / high lactate then you might need to give inotropes.  BUT you have to “prime the pump first” – check the IVC / SVV (or CVP if you believe in it) to ensure they are fluid loaded adequately.  So which fluid?   The SAFE trial - no difference between saline and albumin, though there was a trend towards benefit in giving albumin in the septic subgroup.  To me, in a small place Hartman’s (Ringer’s) seems to make sense – it is chaep, easy and doesn’t screw with your acidosis too much?

Then, and only then give inotropes…which one?    I think the answer is noradrenaline – it is widely used for sepsis and makes sense as it has good alpha agonism – so combats the low SVR.  You could also use phenylepherine if you cannot get a CVC.  If htere is evidence of myocardial depression – then you might need to get smarter and use adrenaline or call a friend for help! Having said that Myburgh et al (Aussie ICU crew) showed no difference between norad and epi – so it is a bit theoretical.

This is not the same as the septic patient.  In my mind this is the opposite of sepsis in a way.  Consider a 30 yo. motorcyclist with crush chest and pelvic fracture.  The BP is lowish, you guess he is bleeding into his chest, pelvis, ?abdo… and his endogenous adrenaline is surging – so he has a massive SVR.  So here – a lowish BP equals a crappy CO and his perfusion of the terminal vessels is terrible.  This is not a place to use vasopressors – you will make his SVR go higher and kill the perfusion further.

The patient with hypovolemic shock needs volume +++ – see recent post on Massive transfusion in trauma.  Blood, clotting factors, keep them warm and manage acidosis.  And acidosis is the result of the anaerobic metabolism in the O2-starved tissues – muscles, livers etc.

So here what you want to do is open up the vascular bed, get the perfusion happening ASAP – you actually want to drop the SVR – the catch phrase is “sympatholytic resuscitation”.  You do this by filling them up with volume, then giving fentanyl (or your favourite alternative) to reduce the endogenous sympathetic drive and allow the red cells you are pumping in to get to the areas that need the oxygen.

Remember – target MAP is 65 initially – so if your patient has a comfy MAP of 85, yet you know they have bleed a lot – your BP is giving you a seriously false sense of goodness. The best guide here is the pH, or lactate or base deficit or the temp of the hands – these are the markers of poor perfusion – not the BP so much!

This is pretty uncommon… unless you are an Obstetric Anaesthetic doc – then you come across it everytime you do a C-section. So I will use this as an example.

When you do a spinal – the first nerves to go ofline are those little sympathetic fibres – so you lose your peripheral vascular tone and the SVR drops quick – and your patient vomits, looks very grey and sweaty.  If the spinal goes higher, you lose the sympathetic fibres to the cardiac plexus – and your patient gets bradycardic, maybe some aorto-caval compression = a problem (CO = HR x SV), a double whammy – SVR crash, then CO crash – not good at all. {pray there isn’t a big bleed mid-op!}

So how to manage this – well it depends on the level of the cord lesion / block.  Lower levels, without bradycardia – maybe just a phenylepherine infusion.  Higher blocks with slow heart – you might need some chronotropy to help – good old adrenaline is my choice (ephedrine is an option – though a bit weak)  The high-spinal is the one emergency that goes C, B, A  - not A, B, C in real time!

So that is my super-simple and pragmatic approach to SHOCK.  In my experience – the big problem with SHOCK is recognizing it.  Once you have made the diagnosis he management is easier – but just remember – the BP is just part of the story.

If you don’t think about the other players – CO, SVR etc then it is a bit like walking into a movie theatre half way through a good “who-dun-it” murder mystery.  You might never guess who the killer was!

Had a tough case this week – 30 odd yo. man came off his motorcycle and suffered a random puncture to the upper thigh, just below the inguinal ligament.  He arrived 20 minutes after the accident with a BP of 70/50.  Interestingly his pulse rate never got much above 100.   The old ATLS classification of shock is far from an ideal tool – sometimes you just gotta look at the whole patient!  This guy was going unconcious due to cerebral hypoperfusion – that is enough for me to say he has big time hypovolemic shock!

There were a lot of great learnings from this case – my first really disciplined attempt at achieving MAP of 65 and titrating drugs / blood products to achieve this end. 

We found no other injury or explanation for the shock – so it was a matter of getting off to the OT for exploration, but we needed to control the loss as it is a good hour until theatre is ready to roll on a weekend.  So we placed a torniquet above the wound and rendered the limb pulseless.  Seemed to work well, and he was “fluid responsive” after this.  Initial ABG showed a lactate of 7.8! pH 7.15…  so we were well behind the 8-ball.  After half an hour of resus, the leg was looking cold and mottled, making the nurses a bit nervous!

This case was timely as I had just finished listening to Dr Jeffery Guy’s Surgery ICU Rounds podcast on the topic: torniquet use in limb trauma.

Check out this study from Iraq  Col. John F. Kragh et al showed that the early application of a good torniquet in limb trauma significantly reduced mortality and did not result in a higher rate of amputation / limb injury secondary to the torniquet use.

To cut a long lecture short – the experience of the US military in Afghanistan / Iraq has shown that with the use of better body armour and IEDs - the limb trauma is now the biggest preventable killer of soldiers in these wars.  The use of field torniquets has now become universal and they have some good data looking at the success and morbidity associated with this practice.  Basically, if you get a torniquet on before shock sets in – the patient does a lot better.  There was little downside – no more amputaitons or permanent disability due to prolonged torniquet time. 

Intuitively this makes sense when you consider the risk associated with the lethal triad of:  acidosis / shock, hypothermia and coagulopathy. 

How does it translate back to our civilian ED / Ambo service?  Well  not entirely the same, but I think I will be applying a torniquet early and getting to the OT ASAP next time this happens!

Oh, they found he had severed his profunda femoris artery in the thigh in case you were interested. Hb never dropped with the blood only resus!

I finally got some IV tranexamic acid (see Massive Transfusion protocol)  in my Resus room – but I didn’t use it on this case – not sure why  – would you have given it based on the CRASH-2 data?

Comments or shared experiences welcome,    Casey

 

 

 

Those of you who read Sepsis I may have been amused by my attempt to compare lactate to a Pap smear – OK, it is a long bow (?in the running for the Agincourt Award).  But my point is, we just don’t do enough lactates in the typical ED to try and catch all the subtle / early, hypoperfused septic / SIRS patients.  So I have another analogy that I hope will be familiar to all the GPs and ED folk out there…

You are working in a medium-sized ED and have just seen a 15 yo boy with 12 hour history of (R) lower quadrant pain, nausea and not much else.  His obs are pretty normal, mum thinks he might have had a fever earlier.  There is no other diagnosis likely on exam – however when you feel his belly  it is not convincing for peritonism – no guarding, rebound or mass, just a bit tender to deep palpation.  You know he might have an early appendicitis, but you also know that a good number of these fizzle out to nothing overnight.  So what to do?

  1. Send him home with mum and get another look at his abdo in the AM, “return if worse”
  2. Admit under the Surgeons for essentially the same management, the Surgeon will review in he AM
  3. Consider investigations: FBP, CRP, or even the nebulous ?appendix USS
  4. Find a keen surgeon who will just whip out his appendix and ask questions later

Appendicitis can be subtle, hard to diagnose in some.  In others it is screamingly obvious – fever, rebound, localising RIF tenderness.  My point is this – we are good at the obvious ones, easy to diagnose and satisfyingly pus-ridden appendixes are removed.  However most surgeons will tell you that if every appendix they remove is purulent / perforated – then they are probably not doing enough(early) appendectomies!  You have to remove some normal appendixes to ensure you are “catching” enough of the nasty ones (this is controversial, but the principle applies – see review).

OK, now back to sepsis screening in ED.  You identify the population of patients who meet the criteria listed in Sepsis I.  These are the people in whom the probability of sepsis is high enough  for you to justify the minor cost / inconvenience of a panel of bloods (including a lactate).  The lactate result then allows you to further stratify the risk with some objectivity.  See review of its uses.   So stratification might look something like this

  • Lactate normal (<2): can be managed as per usual, ID source of sxs, outpatient management
  • Lactate 2 – 4 : at risk, needs close observation, micro samples and empirical Abs, repeat lactate after initial intervention
  • Lactate high (>4):  needs urgent resuscitation, micro, empirical ABs.  This group has a high 28-day mortality independent of the presence of shock. see Mikkelsen et al

The goal here is to identify the subtle ones – the ones that you might have otherwise sent home.  If every ABG / lactate you order comes back positive – you likely have sent home somebody in early septic shock!  You need to drop your threshold for ordering a VBG to the point where you have a decent ‘negative rate’ so you are not missing the early sepsis.  So doing a lactate is a bit like asking the Surgeons to review the ?appendix – the smart surgeon stratifies the risk of perforation / complications against the risk of removing a “normal appendix”.  However, doing a lactate is infinitely easier, cheaper and less invasive than an appendectomy.  BUT, missing an occult sepsis is very bad.  So you have not much to lose and all to gain.  Oh, and the surgeon might use time as a “diagnostic tool”  BUT this may not be such a great idea when it comes to ?Sepsis as we shall see as we progress through this series.

This is the start of a series of posts on sepsis, I hope to cover the following topics in the coming weeks:

  • I :  Sepsis: screening and diagnosis
  • II : Antibiotics – what and when
  • III : Identify the source and control it if you can
  • IV :  Fluid and inotropes in sepsis

So here is the case for discussion – this is a real ED case from Broome last month.

39 yo woman with type-2 DM on insulin and metformin.  Presents to ED with fever, vomiting and vague (L) lower abdo pain for 12 hours.  States she feels thirsty, looks uncomfortable. No cough, URTI, no diarrhea.  Recently treated for UTI by GP, no urinary sxs since.

Triage obs @ 08:45 am : p=135/min,  BP = 119/73, T = 39.5, RR = 20.

Physical exam = tender (L) lower abdo, ENT / chest clear.   U/A = 2+leuks, 2+ blood.   BSL 8.4

Seen by RMO who recognised she was sick, IV access bloods and 2 L of normal saline.  Bloods sent:

  • FBP – mild lymphopenia
  • CRP = 19
  • UEcr / LFTs  all normal.  Bicarb 26
  • VBG – pH 7.27; pCO2 56; BE 1.9;  HCO3  28;  lactate 4.7
  • Blood cultures sent

On review a few hours later – patient feeling a bit better.  USS of abdo /pelvis – no findings to explain LIF tenderness.

Remained unwell with headaches, fever, tachycardia.  Repeat bloods for VBG were done – now looking more normal, acidosis corrected and lactate down = 1.9.  (What does “lactate clearance mean?” in this scenario)  So what happened?  Case D/W senior docs and…

Discharged home….  then represented later that night with same symptoms, rigors.  Admitted and commenced on IV ceftriaxone and gentamicin @ 22:00 (~13 hrs post triage).  This is not Broome ED’s finest moment, a possible near miss.  So how could we do better?

This is where I compare screening for sepsis to a Pap smear (hang in there, it is a weird comparison but stay with me).  As GPs we look at women’s cervixes all the time and we screen them for cervical neoplasia using Pap smears.  However, there was a time before Pap smears when we just looked at women with a symptom – eg. PV bleeding and did a spec to look for cervical changes / cancer etc.  I am sure most of the referrals to the Gynae yielded a positive result – but a lot of women with subtle changes / CIN were missed in the asymptomatic early stage of disease when intervention would have helped.  This is the basis of any screening tool: screen an “at risk” population with a sensitive test to find those who potentially have pre-clinical disease.   So back to sepsis:

Screening at triage uses a set of criteria to define the “at risk” group of patients.  The following criteria are used in other centres:

  • Fever (>38) OR suspected infection
  • pulse > 90
  • RR > 20
  • systolic BP < 90
  • Any change in mental status
  • SpO2 < 92 % on RA
  • Immunocompromised: steroids, chemo, uncontrolled diabetes
  • Invasive devices, surgery or procedures recently

So if you have 3 or more of these criteria you are into the high risk group and you automatically get the screening tool = bloods including a venous or arterial lactate sample, cultures, FBP, CRP, UECr, LFTs, Coag profile.  Lactate is either <2   OR  > 2.  (If > 4 then resuscitation should be commenced ASAP.)

You then get early review by a senior doctor to commence septic source identification workup: cultures, urine, CXR, any other pus, LP if indicated.

The goal is to expedite this process so that empirical or directed anitbiotic therapy can be delivered ASAP (door-to- ABs time minimised)

So that is screening in a nutshell.  Identify the “at risk” patients, do basic bloods + lactate then decide on appropriate therapy / Investigation.  The plan is to remove idiosyncratic decision making around the sick patient and streamline the process from triage to diagnosis / treatment.

I imagine that the “at risk” group will be in the 100 per month in my ED, then the lactate + patients will be ~5 % of those, ie. I am happy with a 1 in 20 pick up to maximise sensitivity and not miss any true positives.

Let me know if this sounds crazy…. evidence to follow

 

I have been busy learning all this week, so not much new material.  Fortunately Dr Ray Gadd out of Qld has sent me a ripper case of sepsis for you to mull and consider.    I know Ray is a keen Broome Docs reader – so let him know what your thoughts are on this case via the Comments area, we all learn from shared ideas!  I love this case because it is a true representation of the resources available to us in remote communities.  The case is definitely not “textbook” – but it is real!

Today’s case is food for thought, I will use it as a basis for some upcoming posts on Sepsis.  Over the coming weeks I hope to put together some Sepsis Resources which I reckon can make the diagnosis and management of sepsis in small / remote hospitals much easier and bring the standard of care for these super-sick patients up to a similar level they would get in any tertiary ED.

So – without further ado – Here is Ray’s case :  Septic Surprise (Apologies it is in PowerPoint – takes a bit to download)

Metformin is a good drug.  Has been 1st line oral diabetic agent for years and is effective for other problems – PCOS etc. However, it has for a long time been shrouded by the perception that it causes lactic acidosis and is therefore a bit dangerous…  but is this true?  Looking at the literature there are a lot of case reports from ICUs and EDs of patients who present with profound metabolic acidosis on metformin.  They have a high mortality and sound quite impressive – one might start to think – is Metformin as benign as we all think?

Recent large retrospective studies have looked at the rate of lactic acidosis anmongst diabetics on metformin and found that it is really a very rare complication, and is always associated with another more acute cause of lactic acidosis – renal failure, sepsis, acute heart failure, hypoxia etc – all common in diabetics.

This 2003 review in Arch of Int Med shows that there is no difference in rates of lactic acidosis between diabetics on metformin vs those on other oral agents.  Another review in 2004 Diabetes Care showed the same, essentially that metformin in overdosage (suicidal doses) may cause lactic acidosis, but at therapeutic doses it is not seen.  Metformin is the innocent scapegoat where there is often a more acute cause.

The Fremantle Diabetes study here in WA looked at this issue and came to the same conclusions in 2008.  The incidence of lactic acidosis was more related to the incidence of diabetic co-morbidity (renal, heart, aging) than to the dose or duration of metformin treatment.

So, what does all this mean for our day-day practice?:

  • Metformin is safe at usual doses (3g/day)
  • Patients with acute conditions whom are unstable / at risk of end-organ failure / shock should have their metformin stopped (unfortunately it is usually already on board).  Basically if your patient is sick enough to come in to hospital you should think – “should I hold the metformin?”
  • Those at higher risk – sepsis, hypoxia, heart failure / ACS – possible cardiogenic shock , those with impaired renal function who are at risk of acute deterioration.
  • Consider patients who  need for IV contrast imaging - should hold it off until the study then afterwards for 3 days.
  • In outpatients – watch renal function: esp in the older pt, alcoholic or malnourished.

Anyone out there got any points to add, cases to show?

Csaey