切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华危重症医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (05) : 339 -344. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6880.2020.05.004

所属专题: 文献

论著

胆碱酯酶、乳酸对脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的评估价值
简娟1, 贺志飚1,(), 刘继强1, 邱双发1, 柴湘平1, 张宏亮1, 彭振宇1   
  1. 1. 410011 长沙,中南大学湘雅二医院急诊医学科
  • 收稿日期:2020-05-19 出版日期:2020-10-31
  • 通信作者: 贺志飚
  • 基金资助:
    北京医卫健康公益基金会医学科学研究基金资助项目(YWJKJJHKYJJ-B17418-Z03); 湖南省卫生计生委科研计划课题项目(C2016069)

Effect of cholinesterase and lactic acid on severity and prognosis of sepsis

Juan Jian1, Zhibiao He1,(), Jiqiang Liu1, Shuangfa Qiu1, Xiangping Chai1, Hongliang Zhang1, Zhenyu Peng1   

  1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha 410011, China
  • Received:2020-05-19 Published:2020-10-31
  • Corresponding author: Zhibiao He
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: He Zhibiao, Email:
引用本文:

简娟, 贺志飚, 刘继强, 邱双发, 柴湘平, 张宏亮, 彭振宇. 胆碱酯酶、乳酸对脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的评估价值[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(05): 339-344.

Juan Jian, Zhibiao He, Jiqiang Liu, Shuangfa Qiu, Xiangping Chai, Hongliang Zhang, Zhenyu Peng. Effect of cholinesterase and lactic acid on severity and prognosis of sepsis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2020, 13(05): 339-344.

目的

探讨胆碱酯酶、乳酸对脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的评估作用。

方法

选择2018年1月至2018年12月入住中南大学湘雅二医院急诊ICU的86例脓毒症患者,根据患者病情的严重程度将86例患者分为脓毒症组(62例)和脓毒性休克组(24例);再根据患者28 d生存情况将86例患者分为存活组(57例)和死亡组(29例)。记录所有患者的年龄、性别、生命体征、呼吸机使用情况、血管活性药物使用情况、胆碱酯酶、乳酸、急性病生理学和长期健康评价(APACHE)Ⅱ评分、序贯器官衰竭估计(SOFA)评分及28 d预后情况。采用多因素Logistic回归分析影响脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的危险因素;绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,分析胆碱酯酶、乳酸评估脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的价值。

结果

脓毒症组患者胆碱酯酶水平[3 897.30(2 970.70,4 760.15)U/L vs. 2 718.05(2 080.25,3 182.05)U/L]显著高于脓毒性休克组患者,而乳酸水平[2.09(1.15,2.99)mmol/L vs. 3.00(2.10,7.00)mmol/L]、APACHEⅡ评分[9.00(6.00,15.00)分vs. 15.50(9.00,19.75)分]及SOFA评分[4.00(2.00,7.50)分vs. 9.50(6.25,13.75)分]均显著低于脓毒性休克组患者(P均< 0.05)。存活组患者胆碱酯酶水平[(3 933 ± 1 484)U/L vs.(2 678 ± 756)U/L]显著高于死亡组患者,而乳酸水平[2.14(1.24,2.98)mmol/L vs. 4.55(1.72,12.13)mmol/L]、APACHEⅡ评分[9.00(6.00,14.50)分vs. 17.50(15.00,19.75)分]及SOFA评分[5.00(2.50,8.50)分vs. 10.50(7.50,13.75)分]均显著低于死亡组患者(P均< 0.05)。将胆碱酯酶、乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分纳入多因素Logistic回归分析,结果显示,胆碱酯酶是脓毒症患者病情严重程度及预后的保护因素,而乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分则是脓毒症患者严重程度及预后的独立危险因素(P均< 0.05)。ROC曲线结果显示,胆碱酯酶、乳酸、胆碱酯酶联合乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分均对脓毒症病情的严重程度及预后具有预测价值(P均< 0.05)。

结论

胆碱酯酶和乳酸对脓毒症患者病情的严重程度及预后均具有预测价值,可协助临床医生做出准确、快速的判断。

Objective

To investigate the value of cholinesterase and lactic acid on the severity and prognosis of sepsis patients.

Methods

From January 2018 to December 2018, 86 patients with sepsis were admitted to the Department of Emergency ICU of the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. According to their disease severity, 86 patients were divided into a sepsis group (n = 62) and a septic shock group (n = 24); then according to their 28-d survival status, 86 patients were divided into a survival group (n = 57) and a death group (n = 29). The age, sex, vital signs, ventilator use, vasoactive drug use, cholinesterase, lactic acid examination, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱ score, sequential organ failure estimation (SOFA) score and 28-d prognosis of all patients were recorded. A multivariate Logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors affecting the severity and prognosis of sepsis patients. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to analyze the value of cholinesterase and lactic acid in evaluating their severity and prognosis.

Results

The level of cholinesterase [3 897.30 (2 970.70, 4 760.15) U/L vs. 2 718.05 (2 080.25, 3 182.05) U/L] in the sepsis group was significantly higher than that in the septic shock group, while the lactic acid level [2.09 (1.15, 2.99) mmol/L vs. 3.00 (2.10, 7.00) mmol/L], APACHEⅡ score [9.00 (6.00, 15.00) scores vs. 15.50 (9.00, 19.75) scores] and SOFA score [4.00 (2.00, 7.50) scores vs. 9.50 (6.25, 13.75) scores] in the sepsis group were significantly lower (all P < 0.05). The level of cholinesterase [(3 933 ± 1 484) U/L vs. (2 678 ± 756) U/L] in the survival group was significantly higher than that in the death group, while the lactic acid level [2.14 (1.24, 2.98) mmol/L vs. 4.55 (1.72, 12.13) mmol/L], APACHEⅡ score [9.00 (6.00, 14.50) scores vs. 17.50 (15.00, 19.75) scores] and SOFA score [5.00 (2.50, 8.50) scores vs. 10.50 (7.50, 13.75) scores] in the survival group were significantly lower (all P < 0.05). The cholinesterase, lactic acid, APACHEⅡ score and SOFA score were included in the multivariate Logistic regression analysis. The results showed that the cholinesterase was a protective factor for the severity and prognosis of sepsis patients, while the lactic acid, APACHE Ⅱ score and SOFA score were their independent risk factors (all P < 0.05). The ROC curve showed that the cholinesterase, lactic acid, cholinesterase combined with lactic acid, APACHEⅡ score and SOFA score all had predictive value for the severity and prognosis of sepsis patients (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Cholinesterase and lactic acid can predict the severity and prognosis of sepsis patients and help clinicians to make accurate and rapid judgment.

表1 脓毒症组与脓毒性休克组患者一般资料及观察指标比较[MP25P75)]
表2 存活组与死亡组脓毒症患者一般资料及观察指标比较[MP25P75)]
表3 Logistic回归分析脓毒症患者病情严重程度的危险因素
表4 Logistic回归分析脓毒症患者预后的危险因素
图1 胆碱酯酶、乳酸、胆碱酯酶联合乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分评估脓毒症严重程度的ROC曲线分析
表5 胆碱酯酶、乳酸、胆碱酯酶联合乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分评估脓毒症患者病情严重程度的ROC曲线分析
图2 胆碱酯酶、乳酸、胆碱酯酶联合乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分评估脓毒症预后的ROC曲线分析
表6 胆碱酯酶、乳酸、胆碱酯酶联合乳酸、APACHEⅡ评分及SOFA评分评估脓毒症患者预后的ROC曲线分析
1
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)[J]. JAMA, 2016, 15 (8): 801-810.
2
Hotchkiss RS, Moldawer LL, Opal SM. Sepsis and septic shock[J]. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2016 (2): 16045.
3
Richards G, Levy H, Laterre PF, et al. CURB-65, P-SI, and APACHE Ⅱ to assess mortality risk in patients with severe sepsis and community acquired pneumonia in PROWESS[J]. J Intensive Care Med, 2011, 26 (1): 34-40.
4
Huda AQ, Karim MR, Mahmud MA, et al. Use of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE)-Ⅱ and red cell distribution width (RDW) for assessment of mortality of patients with sepsis in ICU[J]. Mymensingh Med J, 2017, 26 (3): 585-591.
5
Liu X, Shen Y, Li Z, et al. Prognostic significance of APACHE Ⅱ score and plasma suPAR in Chinese patients with sepsis: a prospective observational study[J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2016, 16 (1): 46-54.
6
Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R, Vattanavanit V. Comparison of the performance of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS for predicting mortality and organ failures among sepsis patients admitted to the intensive care unit in a middle-income country[J]. J Crit Care, 2018 (44): 156-160.
7
Casserly B, Phillips GS, Schorr C, et al. Lactate measurements in sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion: results from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database[J]. Crit Care Med, 2015, 43 (3): 567-573.
8
Zhao M, Duan M. Lactic acid, lactate clearance and procalcitonin in assessing the severity and predicting prognosis in sepsis[J]. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue, 2020, 32 (4): 449-453.
9
Masson P, Nachon F. Cholinesterase reactivators and bioscavengers for pre-and post-exposure treatments of organophosphorus poisoning[J]. J Neurochem, 2017, 142 (S2): 26-40.
10
Rimachi R, Bmzzi de Carvahlo F, Orellano-Jimenez C, et al. Lactate/pyruvate ratio as a marker of tissue hypoxia in circulatory and septic shock[J]. Anaesth Intensive Care, 2012, 40 (3): 427-432.
11
张向群,刘波,徐爱民,等. 血乳酸联合PIRO评分对脓毒症患者预后的预测价值[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志,2017,26(2): 176-180.
12
Song JE, Kim MH, Jeong WY, et al. Mortality risk factors for patients with septic shock after implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles[J]. Infection and Chemotherapy, 2016, 48 (3): 199-208.
13
Darvesh S, Hopkins DA, Geula C. Neurobiology of butyrylcholinesterase[J]. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2003, 4 (2): 131-138.
14
Zhang QH, Li AM, He SL, et al. Serum total cholinesterase activity on admission is associated with disease severity and outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10 (6): e0129082.
15
Mo X, Tang H, Zeng L, et al. The value of determination of serum cholinesterase levels in judgment of severity and prognosis in patients with severe pneumonia[J]. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue, 2016, 28 (1): 38-43.
16
莫新,梁艳冰,陈志斌,等. 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/CD]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版),2016,9(3): 159-162.
17
Borovikova LV, Ivanova S, Zhang M. Vagus nerve stimulation attenuates the systemic inflammatory response to endotoxin[J]. Nature, 2000, 405 (6785): 458-462.
18
Pavlov VA, Tracey KJ. The vagus nerve and the inflammatory reflex--linking immunity and metabolism[J]. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2012, 8 (12): 743-754.
19
刘芬,江榕,李勇,等. 乙酰胆碱酯酶在脂多糖诱导肺泡巨噬细胞中的变化[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志,2014,23(8): 871-875.
20
Li G, Zhou CL, Zhou QS, et al. Galantamine protects against lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in rats[J]. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2016, 49 (2): e5008.
[1] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[2] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[3] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[4] 梁孟杰, 朱欢欢, 王行舟, 江航, 艾世超, 孙锋, 宋鹏, 王萌, 刘颂, 夏雪峰, 杜峻峰, 傅双, 陆晓峰, 沈晓菲, 管文贤. 联合免疫治疗的胃癌转化治疗患者预后及术后并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 619-623.
[5] 张志兆, 王睿, 郜苹苹, 王成方, 王成, 齐晓伟. DNMT3B与乳腺癌预后的关系及其生物学机制[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-629.
[6] 李伟, 宋子健, 赖衍成, 周睿, 吴涵, 邓龙昕, 陈锐. 人工智能应用于前列腺癌患者预后预测的研究现状及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[7] 关小玲, 周文营, 陈洪平. PTAAR在乙肝相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者短期预后中的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 841-845.
[8] 张润锦, 阳盼, 林燕斯, 刘尊龙, 刘建平, 金小岩. EB病毒相关胆管癌伴多发转移一例及国内文献复习[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 865-869.
[9] 陈晓鹏, 王佳妮, 练庆海, 杨九妹. 肝细胞癌VOPP1表达及其与预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 876-882.
[10] 刘郁, 段绍斌, 丁志翔, 史志涛. miR-34a-5p 在结肠癌患者的表达及其与临床特征及预后的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 485-490.
[11] 陈倩倩, 袁晨, 刘基, 尹婷婷. 多层螺旋CT 参数、癌胚抗原、错配修复基因及病理指标对结直肠癌预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 507-511.
[12] 曾明芬, 王艳. 急性胰腺炎合并脂肪肝患者CT 与彩色多普勒超声诊断参数与其病情和预后的关联性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 531-535.
[13] 沈炎, 张俊峰, 唐春芳. 预后营养指数结合血清降钙素原、胱抑素C及视黄醇结合蛋白对急性胰腺炎并发急性肾损伤的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 536-540.
[14] 王景明, 王磊, 许小多, 邢文强, 张兆岩, 黄伟敏. 腰椎椎旁肌的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 846-852.
[15] 郭曌蓉, 王歆光, 刘毅强, 何英剑, 王立泽, 杨飏, 汪星, 曹威, 谷重山, 范铁, 李金锋, 范照青. 不同亚型乳腺叶状肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 524-532.
阅读次数
全文


摘要