In this study, 60 patients with septic shock were selected over the course of 1 year, and the effects of dopamine and norepinephrine combined with dobutamine on hepatic and intestinal circulation and intestinal barrier in patients with septic shock were studied by comparison between the control group and the experimental group. All patients received mechanical ventilation to maintain breathing at 14 to 20 times/min. The experimental group was treated with vascular active drugs after adequate rehydration, and the control group only received adequate rehydration. There were extremely significant differences (p<0.01) in the total effective rate of each group. There were significant differences in the hemodynamic indexes in each group (p<0.05). There was a significant difference in total 24-hour bile output (p<0.01). There were significant differences in liver function and blood lipid values in patients (p<0.01). There were significant differences in the repair of epithelial injury at 0 hour, 48 hours and 96 hours (p<0.01). There were significant differences in the transmembrane resistance of monolayer cells (p<0.01). The expression differences of three proteins ZO-1, occludin and β-actin were also significant, among which the three proteins in the control group were weak, while those in groups A and B were strong. The expression of tight junction protein in monolayer cells was weakly positive in expression and strong in other proteins. In conclusion, vasoactive drugs had significant effects on hepatic and intestinal circulation and intestinal barrier in patients with septic shock.
- acute disease
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
JL and MZ are joint first authors.
JL and MZ contributed equally.
Contributors JL and G-QH contributed to the conception and design of the study. MZ, XZ and Y-JZ contributed to the acquisition of data. H-NL and Y-JZ performed the experiments. XZ and MZ contributed to the analysis of data. JL wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This study was supported by Shiyan Guided Research Projects (NO. 18Y48).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.