Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Le point sur … ((POINT))

  • 681 Accesses

Résumé

Le choc septique constitue une urgence thérapeutique. L’examen clinique est une étape incontournable de la prise en charge du patient. Sa qualité conditionne la suite de la prise en charge. Il doit être divisé en deux étapes distinctes. La première étape consiste en la reconnaissance du choc, l’évaluation de sa sévérité et l’évocation de l’étiologie septique, ce qui permet de conduire dès l’admission le traitement symptomatique optimal [1]. La seconde étape est la recherche minutieuse du foyer infectieux. L’interrogatoire du patient ou de sa famille fournit les grandes orientations diagnostiques. L’examen du patient, organe après organe, permet dans la plupart des situations, de localiser le foyer infectieux et de débuter le traitement en augmentant la probabilité d’être efficace d’emblée.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Réfénces

  1. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S et al. (2001) Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 345: 1368–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Parrillo JE (1993) Pathogenetic mechanisms of septic shock. N Engl J Med 328: 1471-73.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bone RC, Balk FB, Cerra RP et al. (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. Chest 101: 1644–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Michard F, Teboul JL (2002) Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest 121: 2000–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boulain T, Achard JM, Teboul JL et al. (2002) Changes in BP induced by passive leg raising predict response to fluid loading in critically ill patients. Chest 121: 1245–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fontanarosa PB, Kaeberlein FJ, Gerson LW, Thomson RB (1992) Difficulty in predicting bacteremia in elderly emergency patients. Ann Emerg Med 21: 842–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hotchkiss RS, Rust RS, Song SK, Ackerman JJ (1993) Effect of sepsis on brain energy metabolism in normoxic and hypoxic rats. Circ Shock 40: 303–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Mili JP et al. (1991) Diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and nonbronchoscopic «blind» bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis 143: 1121–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Singh N, Rogers P, Atwood CW et al. (2000) Short-course empiric antibiotic therapy for patients with pulmonary infiltrates in the intensive care unit. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 162: 505–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas SH, Silen W, Cheema F et al. (2003) Effects of morphine analgesia on diagnostic accuracy in Emergency Department patients with abdominal pain: a prosepective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg 196: 18–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag France

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leone, M., Rousseau, S., Martin, C. (2011). Examen clinique. In: Sepsis grave et choc septique. Le point sur …. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0064-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0064-6_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0063-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0064-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics