连续性肾脏替代疗法对多器官功能障碍综合征患者的疗效分析

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2018.06.002

目的

探讨连续性肾脏替代疗法(continuous renal replacement therapy，CRRT)对多器官功能障碍综合征(multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, MODS)患者的疗效。

方法

将194例多器官功能障碍综合征患者分为两组，89例未使用连续性肾脏替代疗法治疗，作为常规治疗组，采用常规治疗方案，包括病因治疗、抗炎、器官功能支持等对症支持治疗。105例在常规治疗基础上加用连续性肾脏替代疗法治疗作为CRRT组。比较两组患者治疗24 h前后急性生理功能和慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(acute Physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ，APACHEⅡ)评分、Marshall评分、序贯器官衰竭评分(Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, SOFA)、降钙素原、平均动脉压、肌酐、氧合指数等指标的变化及7 d生存率。

结果

CRRT组治疗前后APACHEⅡ评分(24.1±7.9)&(19.8±7.6)、治疗前后Marshall评分(7.3±2.7)&(6.8±2.9)及治疗前后SOFA评分(11.9±2.7)&(10.8±3.2)均显著降低，P均<0.05，而常规治疗组治疗前后APACHEⅡ评分(23.2±8.4)&(23.1±8.6)、治疗前后Marshall评分(7.1±3.1)&(7.3±3.1)，治疗前后SOFA评分(11.1±3.3)&(11.2±3.5)均无显著差异。CRRT组治疗前后降钙素原10.6(7.1，16.1)& 4.7(2.5，6.9)、治疗前后平均动脉压(76.3±19.7)&(83.2±15.6)、治疗前后肌酐199(147.5, 328.5)& 149(95.5，232.5)及治疗前后氧合指数(228.9±105.1)&(269.1±111.5)均显著改善，P均<0.05，而常规治疗组治疗前后降钙素原13.7(10.1，19.6)& 13.4(10.1，21.6)、治疗前后平均动脉压(83.0±17.9)&(80.0±15.9)、治疗前后肌酐180(119.5, 281.0)& 195(113.5, 313.5)及治疗前后氧合指数(286.3±139.3)&(283.2±126.6)均无显著差异。CRRT组7 d生存率显著提高，P<0.05。

结论

多器官功能障碍综合征患者早期行连续性肾脏替代疗法治疗APACHEⅡ评分、Marshall评分、SOFA评分显著降低，炎症明显消退，心血管系统功能、肾功能、呼吸系统功能得到明显改善，可显著提高患者短期生存率。

关键词: 连续性肾脏替代疗法, 多器官功能障碍综合征, 短期生存率

Objective

To investigate the curative effect of continuous renal replacement therapy(CRRT) in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome(MODS).

Methods

194 patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were divided into two groups. 89 patients without using CRRT treatment for various reasons, as a routine treatment group, were treated by the conventional treatment, including etiological treatment, anti-inflammatory, organ function support and other symptomatic supportive treatment.The other 105 patients were treated with continuous renal replacement therapy on the basis of conventional therapy as the CRRT group. analysis of two groups of Patients before and after treatment for 24 hours The acute Physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ score, Marshall score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, the changes of calcitonin original, mean arterial Pressure, creatinine, oxygenation index and 7 days survival rate of two groups of patients before and after treatment for 24 hours were compared, and the efficacy of treatment was analyzed.

Results

Before and after treatment in the CRRT group, APSCHE Ⅱ scores were (24.1±7.9) and (19.8±7.6), Marshall scores were (7.3±2.7) and (6.8±2.9), and SOFA scores were (11.9±2.7) and (10.8±3.2) with significant differences (P<0.05). Before and after treatment in the conventional group, the APACHE Ⅱ score were (23.2 ± 8.4) and (23.1 ± 8.6), Marshall score were (7.1 ± 3.1) and (7.3 ± 3.1), SOFA score were (11.1±3.3) and (11.2±3.5) with no significant differences. Before and after treatment in the CRRT group, procalcitonin were 10.6 (7.1, 16.1) & 4.7 (2.5, 6.9), mean arterial pressure were (76.3±19.7) and (83.2±15.6), creatinine were 199 (147.5, 328.5) & 149, and oxygenation index were (228.9±105.1) and (269.1±111.5) with significant differences (P<0.05). Before and after treatment in the conventional treatment group, procalcitonin were 13.7 (10.1, 19.6) & 13.4. 10.1, 21.6), mean arterial pressure were (83.0±17.9) and (80.0±15.9), creatinine were 180 (119.5, 281.0) & 195 (113.5, 313.5), and oxygenation index were (286.3±139.3) and(283.2±126.6)with no significant differences. The 7-day survival rate of the CRRT group was significantly improved (P<0.05).

Conclusions

in Patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were treated early with continuous renal replacement therapy. APACHE Ⅱ grade, Marshall, SOFA score were significantly reduced. Inflammation, cardiovascular system function, renal function, and respiratory function were improved significantly. Sothe short-term survival rate can be significantly improved.

Key words: continuous renal replacement therapy, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, Short-term survival rate

表1 两组患者一般情况比较

组别	性别		年龄 (岁，±s)	基础病[例(%)]			评分(±s)
组别	男	女	年龄 (岁，±s)	高血压	糖尿病	冠心病	SOFA	APACHEⅡ	Marshall评分
CRRT组	65(61.9%)	40(38.1%)	60.9±16.2	11(10.48%)	4(3.81%)	2(1.9%)	11.9±2.7	24.1±7.9	7.3±2.7
常规治疗组	50(56.2%)	39(43.8%)	63.2±18.4	16(17.98%)	6(6.74%)	6(6.7%)	11.1±3.3	23.2±8.4	7.1±3.1
χ²/t值	0.65		0.21	2.27	0.65	2.85	－1.70	－0.78	－0.56
P值	>0.05		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

表1 两组患者一般情况比较

组别	性别		年龄 (岁，±s)	基础病[例(%)]			评分(±s)
组别	男	女	年龄 (岁，±s)	高血压	糖尿病	冠心病	SOFA	APACHEⅡ	Marshall评分
CRRT组	65(61.9%)	40(38.1%)	60.9±16.2	11(10.48%)	4(3.81%)	2(1.9%)	11.9±2.7	24.1±7.9	7.3±2.7
常规治疗组	50(56.2%)	39(43.8%)	63.2±18.4	16(17.98%)	6(6.74%)	6(6.7%)	11.1±3.3	23.2±8.4	7.1±3.1
χ²/t值	0.65		0.21	2.27	0.65	2.85	－1.70	－0.78	－0.56
P值	>0.05		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

表2 两组治疗24 h前后降钙素原和白细胞比较[QM(Q₁～Q₃)]

组别		降钙素原(ng/mL)	WBC(×10⁹/L)
CRRT组		?	?
?	治疗前	10.6(7.1，16.1)	13.56(8.60, 19.83)
?	治疗后	4.7^a(2.5，6.9)	13.15(8.70, 20.40)
常规治疗组		?	?
?	治疗前	13.7(10.1，19.6)	12.57(7.35, 19.50)
?	治疗后	13.4(10.1，21.6)	12.58(7.61, 18.78)
?	χ²值	－5.97	－0.49
?	P值	<0.05	>0.05

表2 两组治疗24 h前后降钙素原和白细胞比较[QM(Q₁～Q₃)]

组别		降钙素原(ng/mL)	WBC(×10⁹/L)
CRRT组		?	?
?	治疗前	10.6(7.1，16.1)	13.56(8.60, 19.83)
?	治疗后	4.7^a(2.5，6.9)	13.15(8.70, 20.40)
常规治疗组		?	?
?	治疗前	13.7(10.1，19.6)	12.57(7.35, 19.50)
?	治疗后	13.4(10.1，21.6)	12.58(7.61, 18.78)
?	χ²值	－5.97	－0.49
?	P值	<0.05	>0.05

表3 两组治疗前后评分比较(±s)

组别		Marshall评分	APACHEⅡ评分	SOFA评分
治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.3±2.7	24.1±7.9	11.9±2.7
?	治疗后	6.8±2.9^a	19.8±7.6^a	10.8±3.2^a
对照组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.1±3.1	23.2±8.4	11.1±3.3
?	治疗后	7.3±3.1	23.1±8.6	11.2±3.5
?	t值	－3.16	－5.59	－4.49
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表3 两组治疗前后评分比较(±s)

组别		Marshall评分	APACHEⅡ评分	SOFA评分
治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.3±2.7	24.1±7.9	11.9±2.7
?	治疗后	6.8±2.9^a	19.8±7.6^a	10.8±3.2^a
对照组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.1±3.1	23.2±8.4	11.1±3.3
?	治疗后	7.3±3.1	23.1±8.6	11.2±3.5
?	t值	－3.16	－5.59	－4.49
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表4 表4　两组治疗24 h前后MAP、HR、Lac比较(±s)

组别		MAP(mmHg)	HR(次/min)	Lac(mmol/L)
CRRT组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	76.3±19.7	112.6±21.7	3.6±0.8
?	治疗后	83.2±15.6^a	99.8±20.7^a	1.9±0.5^a
常规治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	83.0±17.9	111.1±25.4	3.3±0.9
?	治疗后	80.0±15.9	112.3±25.5	3.4±0.8
?	t值	－3.41	－5.07	－12.03
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表4 表4　两组治疗24 h前后MAP、HR、Lac比较(±s)

组别		MAP(mmHg)	HR(次/min)	Lac(mmol/L)
CRRT组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	76.3±19.7	112.6±21.7	3.6±0.8
?	治疗后	83.2±15.6^a	99.8±20.7^a	1.9±0.5^a
常规治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	83.0±17.9	111.1±25.4	3.3±0.9
?	治疗后	80.0±15.9	112.3±25.5	3.4±0.8
?	t值	－3.41	－5.07	－12.03
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表5 两组各自治疗24h前后尿量、肌酐、尿素氮比较[QM(Q₁～Q₃)]

组别		尿量(mL/24 h)	Scr(μmol/L)	BUN(mmol/L)
CRRT组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	530(200, 1475)	199(147.5, 328.5)	17.5(11.2, 26.9)
?	治疗后	858^a(350, 2070)	149^a(95.5, 232.5)	12.0^a(8.3, 21.7)
常规治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	1 100(650, 1713)	180(119.5, 281.0)	14.9(10.2, 20.9)
?	治疗后	850(420, 2615)	195(113.5, 313.5)	16.4(10.9, 23.9)
?	Z值	－3.17	－6.23	－6.65
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表5 两组各自治疗24h前后尿量、肌酐、尿素氮比较[QM(Q₁～Q₃)]

组别		尿量(mL/24 h)	Scr(μmol/L)	BUN(mmol/L)
CRRT组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	530(200, 1475)	199(147.5, 328.5)	17.5(11.2, 26.9)
?	治疗后	858^a(350, 2070)	149^a(95.5, 232.5)	12.0^a(8.3, 21.7)
常规治疗组		?	?	?
?	治疗前	1 100(650, 1713)	180(119.5, 281.0)	14.9(10.2, 20.9)
?	治疗后	850(420, 2615)	195(113.5, 313.5)	16.4(10.9, 23.9)
?	Z值	－3.17	－6.23	－6.65
?	P值	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表6 两组治疗24 h前后pH值、HCO₃^－、氧合指数和呼吸频率比较(±s)

组别		pH值	HCO₃^－(mmol/L)	PaO₂/FiO₂(mmHg)	呼吸(次/min)
CRRT组		?	?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.32±0.10	19.6±7.2	228.9±105.1	22.5±6.3
?	治疗后	7.38±0.08^a	23.4±4.9^a	269.1±111.5^a	20.5±5.2^a
常规治疗组		?	?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.35±0.10	19.7±6.9	286.3±139.3	22.9±6.6
?	治疗后	7.34±0.10	20.3±6.7	283.2±126.6	22.4±6.7
t值		－4.47	－4.23	－3.77	－1.75
P值		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表6 两组治疗24 h前后pH值、HCO₃^－、氧合指数和呼吸频率比较(±s)

组别		pH值	HCO₃^－(mmol/L)	PaO₂/FiO₂(mmHg)	呼吸(次/min)
CRRT组		?	?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.32±0.10	19.6±7.2	228.9±105.1	22.5±6.3
?	治疗后	7.38±0.08^a	23.4±4.9^a	269.1±111.5^a	20.5±5.2^a
常规治疗组		?	?	?	?
?	治疗前	7.35±0.10	19.7±6.9	286.3±139.3	22.9±6.6
?	治疗后	7.34±0.10	20.3±6.7	283.2±126.6	22.4±6.7
t值		－4.47	－4.23	－3.77	－1.75
P值		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

图1 两组患者生存曲线图(7 d)　的比较

1	中华医学会重症医学分会. 中国严重脓毒症/脓毒症休克治疗指南[J]. 中华危重病急救医学，2015，27(6): 401-426.
2	Cole L, Bellomo R, Journois D, et al.High volume hemofilt ration in human septic shock[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2001, 27(6): 978-986.
3	Klouche K, Cavadore P, Portales P, et al.Continuous veno-ve-nous hemofilt ration improves hemodynamics in septic shock with acute renal failure wit hout modifying TNF alpha and IL26 plas-ma concent rations[J]. J NePhrol, 2002, 15(2): 150-157.
4	García-Fernández N, Lavilla FJ, Rocha E, et al.Haemostatic changes in systemic inflammatory response syndrome during continuous renal replacementt heraPy[J]. J NePhrol, 2000, 13(4): 282-289.
5	Matsumoto K, Hayashi T. Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) therapy in patient with refractory hart failure[J]. NiPPon Rinsho, 2007, 28(5): 255-258.
6	Kelm DJ, Perrin JT, Cartin-Ceba R, et al.Fluid overload in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy is associated with increased acute need for fluid-related medical interventions and hospital death[J]. Shock, 2015, 43(1): 68-73.
7	程涛，张晓霞，玉素甫江，等. 下腔静脉扩张指数在脓毒症休克性急性肾损伤中的作用[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志，2016，25(5): 638-643.
8	Basu RK, Andrews A, Krawczeski C, et al.Acute kidney injury based on corrected serum creatinine is associated with increased morbidity in children following the arterial switch operation[J]. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2013, 14(5): e218-e224.
9	Teixeira C, Garzotto F, Piccinni P, et al.Fluid balance and urine volume are independent predictors of mortality in acute kidney injury[J]. Crit Care, 2013, 17(1): R14.
10	宋艳东，李志忠. 急性心肌梗死后心肾功能不全低血压状态CRRT疗效分析[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志，2011，20(8): 861-863.
11	National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network, Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, et al.Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung[J]. N Engl J Med, 2006, 354(24): 2564-2575.
12	Bouchard J, Soroko SB, Chertow GM, et al.Fluid accumulation, survival and recovery of kidney function in critically ill Patients with acute kidney injury[J]. Kidney Int, 2009, 76(4): 422-427.
13	Castellanos-Ortega A, Suberviola B, García-Astudillo LA, et al.Impact of the surviving sepsis campaign protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients：results of a three-year follow-up quasi-experimental study[J]. Crit Care Med, 2010, 38(4): 1036-1043.
14	Coba V, Whitmill M, Mooney R, et al.Resuscitation Bundle compliance in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Improves Survival, Is Better Late than Never[J]. J Intensive Care Med, 2011, 26(5): 304-313.
15	蔡成，龚小慧，裘刚，等. 连续性血液净化救治危重症新生儿的临床应用评价[J]. 中华围产医学杂志，2015，18(10): 737-741.
16	Vaara ST, Korhonen AM, Kaukonen KM, et al.Fluid overload is associated with an increased risk for 90-day mortality in critically ill patients with renal replacement therapy: data from the prospective FINNAKI study[J]. Critical Care, 2012, 16(5): R197.

[1]	韩圣瑾, 周正武, 翁云龙, 黄鑫. 碳酸氢钠林格液联合连续性肾脏替代疗法对创伤合并急性肾损伤患者炎症水平及肾功能的影响[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 376-381.
[2]	吕铁, 应利君, 席小龙. 连续性肾脏替代疗法叠加全血吸附改善脓毒性休克患者心肌抑制的疗效研究[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(05): 334-338.
[3]	谢佩佩, 杨富国, 潘新亭, 张成林, 宋婧宇. 血浆置换联合连续性肾脏替代疗法在重症急性胰腺炎患者中的应用研究[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(05): 301-305.
[4]	莫新, 梁艳冰, 陈志斌, 李振宇, 杨冰玉, 马中富. 重症肺炎患者血清胆碱酯酶含量变化及其与急性病生理学和长期健康评价Ⅱ评分、多器官功能障碍综合征评分的相关性研究[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2016, 09(03): 159-162.
[5]	黎书, 王峥, 董丽群, 张利娟. 血液净化治疗儿童多器官功能障碍综合征的疗效分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2015, 11(06): 703-707.
[6]	丘力, 钟琳. 儿童鱼胆中毒的临床分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2013, 09(03): 353-356.
[7]	肖坤, 郭超, 阮吉寿, 闫鹏, 解立新. MODS修订评分对老年多器官功能障碍综合征患者的预后评估[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(02): 183-187.
[8]	吉晶晶, 刘喆滢, 苏磊, 刘志锋. 肠道功能损害还是脓毒症的"发动机"吗？[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(03): 267-271.
[9]	陈德昌. 回顾历史，试看今日和明朝：中国病理生理学会危重病医学分会成立20周年纪念[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2016, 02(03): 145-148.
[10]	陆猛桂, 黄斌, 李秋林, 何媛梅. 蜂蛰伤患者发生多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 1010-1015.
[11]	余凯, 周天恩, 王鹏飞, 蒋龙元. 连续性肾脏替代疗法治疗多器官功能障碍综合的疗效[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2019, 05(05): 262-266.
[12]	徐文秀, 张谦. 多器官功能障碍综合征患者血中miRNA表达谱的变化[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2015, 01(04): 20-23.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Curative effect analysis of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Curative effect analysis of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome