Advertisement

Annals of Intensive Care

, 9:37 | Cite as

Narrative review: clinical assessment of peripheral tissue perfusion in septic shock

  • Geoffroy Hariri
  • Jérémie Joffre
  • Guillaume Leblanc
  • Michael Bonsey
  • Jean-Remi Lavillegrand
  • Tomas Urbina
  • Bertrand Guidet
  • Eric Maury
  • Jan Bakker
  • Hafid Ait-OufellaEmail author
Open Access
Review

Abstract

Sepsis is one of the main reasons for intensive care unit admission and is responsible for high morbidity and mortality. The usual hemodynamic targets for resuscitation of patients with septic shock use macro-hemodynamic parameters (hearth rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure). However, persistent alterations of microcirculatory blood flow despite restoration of macro-hemodynamic parameters can lead to organ failure. This dissociation between macro- and microcirculatory compartments brings a need to assess end organs tissue perfusion in patients with septic shock. Traditional markers of tissue perfusion may not be readily available (lactate) or may take time to assess (urine output). The skin, an easily accessible organ, allows clinicians to quickly evaluate the peripheral tissue perfusion with noninvasive bedside parameters such as the skin temperatures gradient, the capillary refill time, the extent of mottling and the peripheral perfusion index.

Keywords

Septic shock Microcirculation Capillary refill time Temperatures gradient Peripheral perfusion index Mottling Skin 

Abbreviations

CI

confidence interval

CRT

capillary refill time

ICU

intensive care unit

MAP

mean arterial pressure

NIRS

near-infrared spectroscopy

NO

nitric oxide

OR

odds ratio

PPI

peripheral perfusion index

SOFA

sequential organ failure assessment

SAPS II

Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II

ROC

receiver operating characteristics

Background

International guidelines emphasized that fast identification, assessment and treatment combining early antibiotic therapy, fluid administration and vasopressor infusion are crucial steps in the management of septic shock. However, despite early management, mortality of patients with septic shock remains high [1]. A possible explanation may be the persistent tissue hypoperfusion despite restoration of macro-hemodynamic parameters.

The usual hemodynamic targets for resuscitation of patients with septic shock use macro-hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure). However, persistent alterations of microcirculatory blood flow despite restoration of macro-hemodynamic parameters can lead to organ failure. In a meta-analysis of 252 patients, De Backer et al. [2] showed that microcirculatory perfusion alterations predict mortality during serious infections, whereas mean arterial pressure or cardiac output did not. In critically ill patients, cardiac output optimization using increasing doses of dobutamine did not improve microvascular blood flow in the sublingual area [3, 4]. In another study, modulating mean arterial pressure by increasing norepinephrine dose had variable unpredictable effects on microcirculatory flow, which occasionally worsened [5, 6]. This dissociation between macro- and microcirculatory compartments, defined by Ince as «a loss of hemodynamic coherence» [7], brings a need to assess end organs tissue perfusion in patients with septic shock and to develop tools to analyze microcirculatory blood flow [8]. The direct identification of severe microcirculatory alterations remains difficult at bedside. Traditional markers of tissue perfusion may not be readily available (lactate) or may take time to assess (urine output). The skin, an easily accessible organ, allows clinicians to quickly evaluate the peripheral tissue perfusion with noninvasive bedside parameters such as the skin temperatures gradient, the capillary refill time, the extent of mottling and the peripheral perfusion index.

The aim of this review is to evaluate whether peripheral tissue perfusion assessment in septic patients could be helpful in evaluating organ failure severity and to screen patients at high risk of mortality. Finally, we analyze available data regarding implementation of peripheral perfusion evaluation in sepsis management.

Skin as a tool for the evaluation of the microcirculation and tissue perfusion

The skin provides important information in patients with septic shock. As a visible and easily accessible organ, the skin allows simple observation of local microcirculatory perfusion through skin temperature alterations (skin temperature gradient), perfusion (capillary refill time) and color (mottling). The pathophysiology of these clinical disorders has not been investigated in depth, but several authors assume that the main driven mechanism of reduced blood flow is local vasoconstriction mediated by sympathetic neuroactivation [8]. Additional mechanisms could participate to impair microvascular blood flow (Fig. 1) [9, 10] such as local endothelial dysfunction [11, 12] (Fig. 2), leukocyte adhesion, platelet activation and fibrin deposition [13]. These clinical, noninvasive, easy-to-use, parameters are attractive tools to follow microcirculatory perfusion in patients with acute circulatory failure [14, 15]. In 2014, several European experts recommended to integrate abnormal skin perfusion parameters in the definition and treatment of shock [16].
Fig. 1

Examples of skin microvascular perfusion evaluation using laser Doppler imaging in the knee area according to the mottling score. Skin perfusion decreases when mottling score worsens.

Adapted from [9]

Fig. 2

Examples of skin microcirculatory endothelial reactivity in the knee area in a patients with sepsis, in a patient with septic shock that was alive at day 14 and in a patient with septic shock that was ultimately dead at day 14. Skin microcirculatory blood flow was measured at baseline and after acetylcholine iontophoresis.

Adapted from [11]

Subjective assessment of peripheral skin temperature may be a valuable tool in the evaluation of patients with septic shock. Eighty years ago, Ebert et al. [17] described the skin of septic shock patients as being «pale, often sweaty». Altemeier et al. [18] then noticed that a moist and cold skin was a factor of worse prognosis in patients with septic shock. Cold hands and feet, and abnormal skin color are the first clinical signs that developed in meningococcal disease in children [19]. In a cohort of 264 surgical ICU patients, patients with cold skin on extremities and knees had significantly lower central venous saturation and higher lactate level as compared to patients with normal skin temperature (4.7 ± 1.5 vs 2.2 ± 1.6 mmol/L, p < 0.05) [20]. In a prospective cohort study of 50 critically ill patients with circulatory dysfunction, including 26 patients with septic shock, Lima et al. [21] observed that patients with cold skin on the extremities had a higher rate of organ failure at 48 h after resuscitation as compared to patients with normal skin temperature.

However, skin temperature gradients may be more accurate in the evaluation of patients with septic shock. Several studies investigated quantitative temperature gradients in critically ill patients, particularly between peripheral and ambient temperatures [22], central and peripheral body temperatures [23] and finger and forearm skin temperatures [24]. Temperature gradients do not correlate with cardiac output [22, 25, 26] but are predictive of both organ failure severity and worse outcome. Joly et al. [22] measured toe-to-ambient temperature gradients 3 h after admission in a mixed population of critically ill patients, and non-survivors had a mean toe-ambient temperature gradient of 0.9 °C, whereas survivors had a gradient of 3.4 °C. Normalization of central-peripheral temperature gradients (< 7 °C) within the 6 first hours of resuscitation predicted correction of hyperlactatemia in septic shock patients [27]. In a recent study including 103 septic patients, Bourcier et al. [28] reported higher central-to-toe temperature gradients and lower toe-to-ambient temperature gradients in patients with septic shock, compared to patients with sepsis. Moreover, a rise in the toe-to-ambient temperature gradient was independently associated with decreased ICU mortality (OR 0.7 [0.5, 0.9] per °C, p < 0.001).

Finger-to-forearm skin and toe-to-ambient temperature gradients are more accurate tools that could be used in every patient without previous hypothermia, including patients with dark skin, providing quantitative information with good reproducibility (Table 1, Fig. 3).
Table 1

Summary of selected studies investigating clinical parameters of peripheral tissue in critically ill sepsis patients

Parameters

References

Patients’ number

% sepsis

% septic shock

Relation to organ failure severity

Relation to mortality

Changes following resuscitation

Peripheral temperature

       

 Subjective assessment: cold versus warm extremities

Kaplan et al. [20]

264

42

Cold extremities group had lower cardiac index, lower SvO2 and higher lactate levels

 Toe-to-room temperature gradient

Joly et al. [22]

100

20

 

Temperature gradient lower in non-survivors

Temperature gradient increased in non-survivors following resuscitation but decreased in non-survivors

 Toe-to-room temperature gradient

Bourcier et al. [28]

103

39

61

Lower in MOF death patients

Decreased in MOF death patients but increased in survivors

Capillary refill time (CRT)

       

 Finger-tip and knee CRT

Ait-Oufella et al. [35]

59

0

100

Correlated with SOFA score

Related to Day-14 mortality

CRT decreased during resuscitation which is associated with better outcome

 Finger-tip CRT

Lara et al. [47]

95

100

Prolonged CRT following resuscitation is associated with higher organ failure severity and higher mortality

 Finger-tip CRT

Hernandez et al. [46]

104

0

100

CRT is normalized within 6 h following resuscitation, whereas lactate normalization is longer

Mottling

       

 Mottling score after initial resuscitation

Ait-Oufella et al. [37]

60

0

100

Correlated with lactate, urinary output and SOFA score

Related to Day-14 mortality

Mottling score decreased following resuscitation which was associated with better outcome

De Moura et al. [39]

97

0

100

Related to Day-28 mortality

Preda et al. [41]

109

100

0

Related to Day-28 mortality

 Mottling presence

Coudroy et al. [40]

791

Related to Day-28 mortality

Mottling persistence > 6 h was associated with higher mortality

Combined parameters

       

 Finger tip CRT + temperature gradient + peripheral perfusion index

Lima et al. [21]

50

42

Associated with lactate levels

Peripheral hypoperfusion associated with worsening SOFA score following resuscitation

 CRT and central-to-toe temperature gradient

Hernandez et al. [27]

41

33

67

CRT is the first be normalized during resuscitation within 2 h

CRT capillary refill time, MOF multiorgan failure, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment

Fig. 3

Proposed strategy to evaluate peripheral tissue perfusion using the skin. CRT capillary refill time, P.Perfusion index peripheral perfusion index

Capillary refill time

The capillary refill time (CRT) measures the amount of time necessary for the skin to return to baseline color after applying a pressure on a soft tissue (generally finger tip). The CRT gives important information on skin perfusion and microcirculatory status but does not reflect cardiac output [25, 29]. Visual measurement of CRT associated with other clinical signs (tachycardia, mucosal dryness, etc.) helps to diagnose dehydration in children [30]. In acute pathologies, such as gastro-intestinal infections or malaria [31], CRT represents an attractive and easy-to-use tool for clinicians in the initial screening of severely ill patients [32]. Inter-rater variability of CRT was weak in non-trained physicians [33], but is better in centers expert in tissue perfusion evaluation [34], especially in the knee area [35]. Standardization of finger-tip pressure (i.e., How long? How strong the applied pressure?) might improve CRT reproducibility. Ait-Oufella et al. [35] obtained good inter-rater concordance by “applying a firm pressure for 15 s. The pressure applied was just enough to remove the blood at the finger tip of the physician’s nail illustrated by appearance of a thin white distal crescent (blanching) under the nail.”

Capillary refill time measurement correlates with the pulsatility index, a surrogate ultrasound-derived parameter that reflects vascular tone of visceral organs in septic shock patients [36]. CRT is an interesting tool to assess the severity of an acute illness. In the intensive care unit, Lima et al. [21] reported an association between a prolonged CRT (> 4.5 s on the index finger) and hyperlactatemia and a higher SOFA score. In septic shock patients, a prolonged CRT 6 h after resuscitation has been shown to be predictive of 14-day mortality, with an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 84% for a measure on the index finger, and 90% for a measure on the knee. A 2.4-second threshold value on the index finger predicted mortality with an 82% sensitivity (95% CI [60–95]) and a 73% specificity (95% CI [56–86]). On the knee, a threshold value of 4.9 s predicted 14-day mortality with an 82% sensitivity (95% CI [60–95]) and an 84% specificity (95% CI [68–94]) [35].

Overall, when used as a qualitative variable (prolonged or not), CRT is a reliable triage tool to identify critically ill patients at risk of negative outcome. Quantitative measurement of CRT should be mainly used by trained physicians in patients with non-dark skin (Table 1, Fig. 3).

Mottling

Mottling, a characteristic discoloration of the skin following reduced skin blood flow [9], is taught as a marker of shock, but its clinical relevance has been poorly investigated until recent years. A significant relationship between mottling extension and visceral organ vascular tone has been reported suggesting that mottling could reflect gut, liver spleen and kidney hypoperfusion [36].

To assess the predictive value of mottling in critically ill patients with severe infections, a semi-quantitative clinical score for mottling (ranging from 0 to 5), based on the extension of these purple patches from the patella toward the periphery, has been developed and validated with an excellent inter-observer reproducibility [37] (Kappa 0.87% (CI 95% [0.72–0.97]) (Fig. 4). Mottling score reliably reflects organ failure severity in patients with sepsis or septic shock and helps to identify critically ill patients with worse outcome. In a study including septic shock patients, the mottling score at 6 h after resuscitation was predictive of death at day 14 (odds radio [OR] 16, CI 95% 4–81, for stages 2–3; vs 74, CI 95% 11–1568, for stages 4–5). Mortality occurred within 12–24 h for stages 4–5, within 24–72 h for stages 2–3 and later than 72 h for the rare deaths for stages 0–1 (Kaplan–Meier charts, p < 0.0001). In the same study, cardiac output and blood pressure were not associated with mortality at day 14, confirming the disparity between microcirculatory and macrocirculatory parameters [37]. These results were confirmed in cirrhotic patients with septic shock [38]. In addition, in mottling groups ≤ 3, knee CRT improved patient discrimination according to their outcome, with non-survivors presenting a significantly higher knee CRT [35]. Another South American study confirmed these results in septic shock patients. Mortality rate at day 28 was 100% when the mottling score was higher or equal to stage 4, 77% for stages 2 and 3, and 45% for stages 1 or lower [39]. Prognostic value of mottling was also reported in unselected ICU patients: Persistent (> 6 h) mottling extending over the knee (> stage 2) was an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 2.08–5.19; p < 0.0001) [40]. Finally, Preda et al. [41] found the good predictive value of the mottling score for mortality at day 28 in patients with sepsis not receiving vasopressors.
Fig. 4

a The mottling score, ranging from 0 to 5, is based on skin mottling area extension on legs. Score 0 represents no mottling, score 1 represents small mottling area (coin size) localized to the center of the knee, score 2 represents mottling area not exceeding the superior edge of the knee cap, score 3 represents mottling area not exceeding the middle thigh, score 4 represents mottling area not exceeding the fold of the groin and score 5 otherwise. b Example of mottling score 5.

Adapted from [37]

In summary, mottling score is a reliable semi-quantitative tool that reflects organ failure severity in non-selected septic patients with or without vasopressors and is helpful to identify critically ill patients with pejorative outcome and also to monitor changes during resuscitation. In patients with mottling score ranging from 0 to 3, knee CRT measurement could be associated with improving risk stratification (Table 1, Fig. 3).

Peripheral perfusion index

Peripheral perfusion index is defined as the difference between the pulsatile and non-pulsatile portion of pulse wave, measured by plethysmography. Peripheral perfusion index (PPI) gives information on peripheral vascular tonus by the pulsatility, decreasing in vasoconstriction and raising in vasodilation [42]. Peripheral perfusion index is an early predictor of central hypovolemia [43]. In a prospective observational study in an emergency department, PPI was not significantly different between patients admitted to the hospital and patients discharged from the emergency department suggesting that it could not be used as a triage tool [44]. However, in critically ill patients, PPI is significantly lower in patients with a peripheral perfusion alteration (0.7 vs 2.3, p < 0.01) [21]. He et al. [45] showed that the PPI is altered in septic shock patients, as compared to control subjects in postoperative scheduled surgery. Moreover, in the same study, the PPI was significantly lower in non-survivors. With a 0.20 cutoff value, PPI was predictive of ICU mortality with an AUC of 84% (69–96), a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 92%.

Discussion

Abnormal skin perfusion evaluation and resuscitation

Despite some differences between micro and macrovascular compartments, it would be over-simplifying and possibly wrong to completely separate these two vascular compartments. In the study by Ait-Oufella et al. [37] focusing on mottling, global hemodynamic improvement within the first hours following resuscitation, based on blood volume optimization and catecholamine use, was associated with mottling improvement. Patients whose mottling score improved through the first 6-hour resuscitation had a good prognosis, whereas those whose score was stable or even worsened had a poor prognosis (14-day mortality: 23% vs 88%, p < 0.001). Finger-tip CRT is also quickly normalized in septic shock patients within 2–6 h after resuscitation, whereas hyperlactatemia requires longer time to recover [27, 46]. Interestingly, patients in whom CRT did not recover after fluid infusion had pejorative outcome [47]. Altogether, these studies suggest that peripheral tissue perfusion could be used as triage tool at the early steps of sepsis management at admission and after fluid infusion. The ongoing ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial aims to compare two resuscitation strategies during the first hours of sepsis treatment on 28-day mortality, one based on CRT measurement and the other on arterial lactate clearance [48]. During ICU stay, evaluation of peripheral perfusion could also be helpful. A «proof-of-concept» study has been done comparing a volume expansion strategy based on peripheral perfusion, clinical parameter assessment, to a classical strategy based on mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure and cardiac index. Peripheral perfusion was assessed through CRT, index-forearm temperature gradient, peripheral perfusion index, and StO2. The resuscitation strategy based on clinical tissue perfusion assessment led to a reduction in fluid therapy volume in the first 72 h (7565 ± 982 mL vs. 10,028 ± 941 mL, p = 0.08) and to a reduction in hospital length of stay (16 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] vs. 43 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45] days, p < 0.05) [49]. A task force of six international experts with extensive bedside experience recently proposed to integrate peripheral tissue perfusion tools in risk stratification and management of septic patients in resource-limited intensive care units, especially CRT, mottling score and temperature gradients [50].

As bedside evaluation of tissue perfusion using the skin improves risk stratification in patients with sepsis, there is a possibility that it could be used as a tool to guide resuscitation. Lavillegrand et al. [51] reported that a mild arterial hypotension (MAP between 55 and 65 mmHg) could be safely tolerated in patients without any sign of hypoperfusion. Such «personalized» management requires close monitoring (in an ICU) but may decrease the use of invasive devices and vasopressors, both having potential side effects. Conversely, patients with markers of tissue hypoperfusion require rapid ICU transfer, and also, we hypothesized that they should be good candidate for therapeutic approaches targeting microcirculation for resuscitation in the future. For example, nitroglycerin infusion had no beneficial effect in unselected sepsis patients [52] but improved peripheral perfusion in selected patients with prolonged CRT and/or increased finger-tip-to-forearm skin gradient temperatures [53]. Ilomedin has been also recently proposed as a rescue therapy in sepsis shock with refractory tissue hypoperfusion [54] and will be tested soon in a prospective randomized multicenter trial (I-MICRO NCT03788837). In the future, it is important to evaluate whether drugs targeting the microcirculation could improve outcome of selected patients with persistent peripheral hypoperfusion despite initial resuscitation [55]. The first results of ANDROMEDA-SHOCK, an international multicenter trial recently completed, support that a tissue perfusion-guided resuscitation is beneficial [48, 56]. Indeed, Hernandez et al. [56] showed in septic shock adults that an early peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation, aiming at normalizing capillary refill time, was associated with less organ dysfunction at day 3 and a trend toward reduced 28-day mortality when compared to a lactate-level-targeted therapeutic strategy.

Limitations

In this review, almost all data were obtained in small-sized monocenter observational studies and were performed by experts in tissue perfusion evaluation, suggesting potential biases. In addition, no published multicenter randomized trial is available showing that the implementation of bedside tissue perfusion assessment improves septic patients management and in fine outcome. This narrative review did not provide strong recommendation regarding the use of tissue perfusion parameters in septic patients according to GRADE methodology but only proposed how and when to implement them.

Conclusion

In patients with septic shock, tissue microvascular hypoperfusion can be evaluated at bedside using indicators of skin perfusion. After initial resuscitation, these parameters are helpful in identifying patients with severe organ failure and at high risk of mortality. However, there is a need in the future to investigate these bedside tissue microvascular perfusion parameters as management targets for resuscitation in septic shock patients.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

Drafting and critical revision of manuscript was done by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

None.

Competing interests

None.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Source of funding

None.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, Murphy DJ, Seymour CW, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Backer D, Donadello K, Sakr Y, Ospina-Tascon G, Salgado D, Scolletta S, et al. Microcirculatory alterations in patients with severe sepsis: impact of time of assessment and relationship with outcome. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(3):791–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Backer D, Creteur J, Dubois MJ, Sakr Y, Koch M, Verdant C, et al. The effects of dobutamine on microcirculatory alterations in patients with septic shock are independent of its systemic effects. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):403–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernandez G, Bruhn A, Luengo C, Regueira T, Kattan E, Fuentealba A, et al. Effects of dobutamine on systemic, regional and microcirculatory perfusion parameters in septic shock: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1435–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dubin A, Pozo MO, Casabella CA, Palizas F Jr, Murias G, Moseinco MC, et al. Increasing arterial blood pressure with norepinephrine does not improve microcirculatory blood flow: a prospective study. Crit Care. 2009;13(3):R92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thooft A, Favory R, Salgado DR, Taccone FS, Donadello K, De Backer D, et al. Effects of changes in arterial pressure on organ perfusion during septic shock. Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R222.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ince C. Hemodynamic coherence and the rationale for monitoring the microcirculation. Crit Care. 2015;19(Suppl 3):S8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lima A, Bakker J. Noninvasive monitoring of peripheral perfusion. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(10):1316–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ait-Oufella H, Bourcier S, Alves M, Galbois A, Baudel JL, Margetis D, et al. Alteration of skin perfusion in mottling area during septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3(1):31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ait-Oufella H, Bourcier S, Lehoux S, Guidet B. Microcirculatory disorders during septic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015;21(4):271–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bourcier S, Joffre J, Dubee V, Preda G, Baudel JL, Bige N, et al. Marked regional endothelial dysfunction in mottled skin area in patients with severe infections. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):155.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker L, Prado K, Foppa M, Martinelli N, Aguiar C, Furian T, et al. Endothelial dysfunction assessed by brachial artery ultrasound in severe sepsis and septic shock. J Crit Care. 2012;27(3):316e9–14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ait-Oufella H, Maury E, Lehoux S, Guidet B, Offenstadt G. The endothelium: physiological functions and role in microcirculatory failure during severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(8):1286–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ait-Oufella H, Bakker J. Understanding clinical signs of poor tissue perfusion during septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):2070–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lima A, Bakker J. Clinical assessment of peripheral circulation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015;21(3):226–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795–815.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ebert RV, Stead EA. Circulatory failure in acute infections. J Clin Invest. 1941;20(6):671–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Altemeier WA, Cole W. Septic shock. Ann Surg. 1956;143(5):600–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson MJ, Ninis N, Perera R, Mayon-White R, Phillips C, Bailey L, et al. Clinical recognition of meningococcal disease in children and adolescents. Lancet. 2006;367(9508):397–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaplan LJ, McPartland K, Santora TA, Trooskin SZ. Start with a subjective assessment of skin temperature to identify hypoperfusion in intensive care unit patients. J Trauma. 2001;50(4):620–7 (discussion 7–8).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lima A, Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Ince C, Bakker J. The prognostic value of the subjective assessment of peripheral perfusion in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):934–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joly HR, Weil MH. Temperature of the great toe as an indication of the severity of shock. Circulation. 1969;39(1):131–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibsen B. Treatment of shock with vasodilators measuring skin temperature on the big toe. Ten years’ experience in 150 cases. Dis Chest. 1967;52(4):425–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    House JR, Tipton MJ. Using skin temperature gradients or skin heat flux measurements to determine thresholds of vasoconstriction and vasodilatation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88(1–2):141–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bailey JM, Levy JH, Kopel MA, Tobia V, Grabenkort WR. Relationship between clinical evaluation of peripheral perfusion and global hemodynamics in adults after cardiac surgery. Crit Care Med. 1990;18(12):1353–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vincent JL, Moraine JJ, van der Linden P. Toe temperature versus transcutaneous oxygen tension monitoring during acute circulatory failure. Intensive Care Med. 1988;14(1):64–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hernandez G, Pedreros C, Veas E, Bruhn A, Romero C, Rovegno M, et al. Evolution of peripheral vs metabolic perfusion parameters during septic shock resuscitation.A clinical-physiologic study. J Crit Care. 2012;27(3):283–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bourcier S, Pichereau C, Boelle PY, Nemlaghi S, Dubee V, Lejour G, et al. Toe-to-room temperature gradient correlates with tissue perfusion and predicts outcome in selected critically ill patients with severe infections. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tibby SM, Hatherill M, Murdoch IA. Capillary refill and core-peripheral temperature gap as indicators of haemodynamic status in paediatric intensive care patients. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80(2):163–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gorelick MH, Shaw KN, Murphy KO. Validity and reliability of clinical signs in the diagnosis of dehydration in children. Pediatrics. 1997;99(5):E6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evans JA, May J, Ansong D, Antwi S, Asafo-Adjei E, Nguah SB, et al. Capillary refill time as an independent prognostic indicator in severe and complicated malaria. J Pediatr. 2006;149(5):676–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gove S, Tamburlini G, Molyneux E, Whitesell P, Campbell H. Development and technical basis of simplified guidelines for emergency triage assessment and treatment in developing countries. WHO Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) Referral Care Project. Arch Dis Child. 1999;81(6):473–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alsma J, van Saase J, Nanayakkara PWB, Schouten W, Baten A, Bauer MP, et al. The power of flash mob research: conducting a nationwide observational clinical study on capillary refill time in a single day. Chest. 2017;151(5):1106–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Genderen ME, Paauwe J, de Jonge J, van der Valk RJ, Lima A, Bakker J, et al. Clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion to predict postoperative complications after major abdominal surgery early: a prospective observational study in adults. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R114.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ait-Oufella H, Bige N, Boelle PY, Pichereau C, Alves M, Bertinchamp R, et al. Capillary refill time exploration during septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(7):958–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brunauer A, Kokofer A, Bataar O, Gradwohl-Matis I, Dankl D, Bakker J, et al. Changes in peripheral perfusion relate to visceral organ perfusion in early septic shock: a pilot study. J Crit Care. 2016;35:105–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ait-Oufella H, Lemoinne S, Boelle PY, Galbois A, Baudel JL, Lemant J, et al. Mottling score predicts survival in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):801–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Galbois A, Bige N, Pichereau C, Boelle PY, Baudel JL, Bourcier S, et al. Exploration of skin perfusion in cirrhotic patients with septic shock. J Hepatol. 2015;62(3):549–55.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Moura EB, Amorim FF, da Cruz Santana AN, Kanhouche G, de Souza Godoy LG, de Jesus Almeida L, et al. Skin mottling score as a predictor of 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):479–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coudroy R, Jamet A, Frat JP, Veinstein A, Chatellier D, Goudet V, et al. Incidence and impact of skin mottling over the knee and its duration on outcome in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(3):452–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Preda G, Bourcier S, Joffre J, Boelle PY, Dubee V, Baudel JL, et al. Mottling score is associated with 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(6):664–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hales JR, Stephens FR, Fawcett AA, Daniel K, Sheahan J, Westerman RA, et al. Observations on a new non-invasive monitor of skin blood flow. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1989;16(5):403–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Genderen ME, Bartels SA, Lima A, Bezemer R, Ince C, Bakker J, et al. Peripheral perfusion index as an early predictor for central hypovolemia in awake healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg. 2013;116(2):351–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oskay A, Eray O, Dinc SE, Aydin AG, Eken C. Prognosis of Critically ill patients in the ED and value of perfusion index measurement: a cross-sectional study. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(8):1042–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    He HW, Liu DW, Long Y, Wang XT. The peripheral perfusion index and transcutaneous oxygen challenge test are predictive of mortality in septic patients after resuscitation. Crit Care. 2013;17(3):R116.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hernandez G, Luengo C, Bruhn A, Kattan E, Friedman G, Ospina-Tascon GA, et al. When to stop septic shock resuscitation: clues from a dynamic perfusion monitoring. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lara B, Enberg L, Ortega M, Leon P, Kripper C, Aguilera P, et al. Capillary refill time during fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis-related hyperlactatemia at the emergency department is related to mortality. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0188548.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hernandez G, Cavalcanti AB, Ospina-Tascon G, Zampieri FG, Dubin A, Hurtado FJ, et al. Early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK—a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van Genderen ME, Engels N, van der Valk RJ, Lima A, Klijn E, Bakker J, et al. Early peripheral perfusion-guided fluid therapy in patients with septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(4):477–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Misango D, Pattnaik R, Baker T, Dunser MW, Dondorp AM, Schultz MJ, et al. Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2017;111(11):483–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lavillegrand JR, Dumas G, Bige N, Zafimahazo D, Guidet B, Maury E, et al. Should we treat mild hypotension in septic patients in the absence of peripheral tissue hypoperfusion? Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1593–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Boerma EC, Koopmans M, Konijn A, Kaiferova K, Bakker AJ, van Roon EN, et al. Effects of nitroglycerin on sublingual microcirculatory blood flow in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock after a strict resuscitation protocol: a double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):93–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lima A, van Genderen ME, van Bommel J, Klijn E, Jansem T, Bakker J. Nitroglycerin reverts clinical manifestations of poor peripheral perfusion in patients with circulatory shock. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R126.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Depret F, Sitbon A, Soussi S, De Tymowski C, Blet A, Fratani A, et al. Intravenous iloprost to recruit the microcirculation in septic shock patients? Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):121–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Legrand M, Ait-Oufella H, Ince C. Could resuscitation be based on microcirculation data? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):944–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hernandez G, Ospina-Tascon GA, Damiani LP, Estenssoro E, Dubin A, Hurtado J, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffroy Hariri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jérémie Joffre
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guillaume Leblanc
    • 3
    • 4
  • Michael Bonsey
    • 1
  • Jean-Remi Lavillegrand
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomas Urbina
    • 1
  • Bertrand Guidet
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Eric Maury
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Jan Bakker
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Hafid Ait-Oufella
    • 1
    • 2
    • 10
    Email author
  1. 1.Service de réanimation médicale, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)Hôpital Saint-AntoineParis Cedex 12France
  2. 2.Sorbonne Université, Université Pierre-et-Marie Curie-Paris 6ParisFrance
  3. 3.Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care MedicineUniversité LavalQuébec CityCanada
  4. 4.Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit (Trauma – Emergency – Critical Care Medicine), Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec – Université LavalUniversité LavalQuébec CityCanada
  5. 5.Inserm U1136ParisFrance
  6. 6.Department Intensive Care AdultsErasmus MC University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of Pulmonology and Critical CareColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Department of Pulmonology and Critical CareNew York University Medical Center – Bellevue HospitalNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Department of Intensive CarePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  10. 10.Inserm U970Centre de Recherche Cardiovasculaire de Paris (PARCC)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations