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) ›› 2021, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (04) : 275 -280. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6880.2021.04.003

论著

蜂蛰伤严重程度相关因素的评估与分析
汪旭1, 张劲松2,(), 唐宁1, 蒋静涵3, 王淦楠2, 娄爽2, 周锋1, 谢正伟1   
  1. 1. 241001 安徽芜湖,皖南医学院第一附属医院急诊重症医学科
    2. 241001 安徽芜湖,皖南医学院第一附属医院全科医学科
    3. 210029 南京,江苏省人民医院急诊重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-09 出版日期:2021-08-31
  • 通信作者: 张劲松

Assessment and analysis of risk factors for severity of wasp sting

Xu Wang1, Jinsong Zhang2,(), Ning Tang1, Jinghan Jiang3, Gannan Wang2, Shuang Lou2, Feng Zhou1, Zhengwei Xie1   

  1. 1. Department of Emergency Intensive Care Unit,
    2. Department of Emergency Intensive Care Unit, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
    3. Department of General Practice, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Wuhu 241001, China
  • Received:2020-12-09 Published:2021-08-31
  • Corresponding author: Jinsong Zhang
引用本文:

汪旭, 张劲松, 唐宁, 蒋静涵, 王淦楠, 娄爽, 周锋, 谢正伟. 蜂蛰伤严重程度相关因素的评估与分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(04): 275-280.

Xu Wang, Jinsong Zhang, Ning Tang, Jinghan Jiang, Gannan Wang, Shuang Lou, Feng Zhou, Zhengwei Xie. Assessment and analysis of risk factors for severity of wasp sting[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2021, 14(04): 275-280.

目的

探讨影响蜂蛰伤患者病情严重程度的临床相关因素。

方法

回顾性分析2016年1月至2020年8月皖南医学院第一附属医院急诊科收治的73例蜂蛰伤患者,根据患者住院期间序贯器官衰竭估计评分变化值(ΔSOFA)将患者分为ΔSOFA评分≥ 2分组(33例)和ΔSOFA评分< 2分组(40例)。比较两组患者的一般资料、临床症状、实验室指标及预后情况等,采用多因素Logistic回归模型分析蜂蛰伤严重程度的相关影响因素,并采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析其预测价值。

结果

ΔSOFA评分≥ 2分组和ΔSOFA评分< 2分组患者年龄[(62 ± 12)岁vs.(44 ± 20)岁,t = 4.563,P < 0.001]、蜇伤蜂种(χ2 = 33.277,P < 0.001)、肉眼血尿(19/33 vs. 1/40,χ2= 24.875,P < 0.001)、皮疹(6/33 vs. 17/40,χ2= 4.995,P= 0.026)、肌酸激酶[4 297 (1 427,11 871)U/L vs. 180(124,405)U/L,H= 5.012,P < 0.001]、总胆红素[46(26,124)μmol/L vs. 11(8,17)μmol/L,H= 6.140,P < 0.001]、红细胞计数[(3.6 ± 0.9)× 1012/L vs.(4.4 ± 0.8)× 1012/L,t= 3.967,P < 0.001]、血小板计数[(151 ± 70)× 109/L vs.(203 ± 72)× 109/L,t= 3.141,P= 0.002]、白细胞计数[(19 ± 8)× 109/L vs.(13 ± 5)× 109/L,t= 3.431,P= 0.001]、肌酐[126(78,261)μmol/L vs. 64(52,75)μmol/L,H= 4.805,P < 0.001]、胱抑素C[1.5(1.0,2.1)mg/L vs. 0.9(0.8,1.1)mg/L,H= 4.753,P < 0.001]和活化部分凝血酶原时间[44.8(26.9,81.9)s vs. 26.1(22.9,29.5)s,H= 3.668,P < 0.001]比较,差异均有统计学意义。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,蜇伤蜂种[比值比(OR)= 83.532,95%置信区间(CI)(1.516,4 601.326),P= 0.031]和总胆红素[OR= 1.092,95% CI(1.003,1.190),P= 0.043]为影响蜂蛰伤后ΔSOFA评分的独立危险因素。ROC曲线分析结果显示,蜇伤蜂种[曲线下面积(AUC)= 0.839,95%CI(0.738,0.940),P < 0.001]和总胆红素[AUC= 0.920,95%CI(0.859,0.980),P < 0.001]均对蜂蛰伤严重程度具有预测价值。ΔSOFA评分≥ 2分组患者的住院时间显著高于ΔSOFA评分< 2分组[11.0(4.0,24.5)d vs. 2.5(2.0,3.0)d,H= 5.056,P < 0.001]。

结论

蜇伤蜂种和总胆红素对蜂蛰伤严重程度具有预测价值,早期识别有助于评估患者病情严重程度并及时进行临床干预。

Objective

To explore the clinically relevant factors affecting the severity of wasp sting.

Methods

A total of 73 wasp sting patients admitted to the Department of Emergency Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College from January 2016 to August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the change of sequential organ failure assessment during hospitalization (ΔSOFA), patients were divided into a ΔSOFA score ≥ 2 group(n= 33) and a ΔSOFA score < 2 group (n= 40). The general data, clinical symptoms, laboratory indicators and prognosis were compared between the two groups. A multi-factor Logistic regression model was used to analyze factors affecting the severity of wasp sting. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze their predictive value.

Results

The age [(62 ± 12) years vs. (44 ± 20) years, t= 4.563, P < 0.001], stinging wasp species (χ2= 33.277, P < 0.001), gross hematuria (19/33 vs. 1/40, χ2= 24.875, P < 0.001), rash (6/33 vs. 17/40, χ2= 4.995, P= 0.026), creatine kinase [4 297 (1 427, 11 871) U/L vs. 180 (124, 405) U/L, H= 5.012, P < 0.001], total bilirubin [46 (26, 124) μmol/L vs. 11 (8, 17) μmol/L, H= 6.140, P < 0.001], erythrocyte count [(3.6 ± 0.9) × 1012/L vs. (4.4 ± 0.8) × 1012/L, t= 3.967, P < 0.001], platelet count [(151 ± 70) × 109/L vs. (203 ± 72) × 109/L, t= 3.141, P= 0.002], leukocyte count [(19 ± 8) × 109/L vs. (13 ± 5) × 109/L, t= 3.431, P= 0.001], creatinine [126 (78, 261) μmol/L vs. 64 (52, 75) μmol/L, H= 4.805, P < 0.001], cystatin C [1.5 (1.0, 2.1) mg/L vs. 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) mg/L, H= 4.753, P < 0.001] and activated partial thromboplastin time [44.8 (26.9, 81.9) s vs. 26.1 (22.9, 29.5) s, H= 3.668, P < 0.001] all showed significant differences between the ΔSOFA score ≥ 2 group and the ΔSOFA score < 2 group. Multi-factor Logistic regression analysis showed that stinging wasp species [odds ratio (OR)= 83.532, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.516, 4 601.326), P= 0.031] and total bilirubin [OR= 1.092, 95%CI (1.003, 1.190), P= 0.043)] were independent factors affecting the ΔSOFA after wasp sting. ROC curve analysis showed that stinging wasp species [area under the curve (AUC)= 0.839, 95%CI (0.738, 0.940), P < 0.001] and total bilirubin [AUC= 0.920, 95%CI (0.859, 0.980), P < 0.001] had predictive value for the severity of wasp sting. The hospitalization stay of patients in the ΔSOFA score ≥ 2 group was significantly higher than that of the ΔSOFA score < 2 group [11.0 (4.0, 24.5) d vs. 2.5 (2.0, 3.0) d, H= 5.056, P < 0.001].

Conclusion

Stinging wasp species and total bilirubin have predictive value for the severity of wasp sting, and their early identification can help assess the severity and conduct timely clinical intervention for patients.

表1 两组蜂蛰伤患者临床资料比较[MP25P75)]
表2 Logistic回归分析影响蜂蛰伤患者ΔSOFA评分的危险因素
图1 蜇伤蜂种、总胆红素对蜂蛰伤后患者ΔSOFA评分≥ 2分的ROC曲线分析
1
廖涛,刘明. 胡蜂蛰伤187例救治分析[J]. 陕西医学杂志,2016,45(4): 432-434.
2
仲艾芳. 703例蜂蜇伤致横纹肌溶解症患者临床特征及危险因素分析[D]. 遵义:遵义医科大学,2020.
3
孙钰文,陈宗运,孙毓徽,等. 秦巴山区714例胡蜂蜇伤流行特征及临床分析[J]. 内科急危重症杂志,2019,25(3): 240-242.
4
中华医学会急诊医学分会,中华危重病急救医学杂志编辑委员会,脓毒症并发弥散性血管内凝血诊治急诊专家共识专家组. 脓毒症并发弥散性血管内凝血诊治急诊专家共识[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2017,29(7): 577-580.
5
汪洋,陈上仲,陈昌勤,等. 序贯器官衰竭估计评分用于脓毒症病情评估的研究进展[J/CD]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版),2016,9(6): 422-425.
6
Piano S, Bartoletti M, Tonon M, et al. Assessment of sepsis-3 criteria and quick SOFA in patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections[J]. Gut, 2018, 67 (10): 1892-1899.
7
谢凤英. 肱静脉采血法在720例注射吸毒者检测中的运用分析[J]. 中国药物依赖性杂志,2018,27(2): 154-155.
8
Diniz AG, Belmino JF, Araujo KA, et al. Epidemiology of honeybee sting cases in the state of Ceara, Northeastern Brazil[J]. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo, 2016 (58): 40.
9
汪静. 重症蜂蛰伤患者的临床特征及死亡危险因素分析[J]. 巴楚医学,2019,2(3): 35-40.
10
谷晓玲,甘林望,吴蔚桦,等. 蜂蜇伤致急性肾损伤的危险因素分析[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2015,27(5): 386-388.
11
张朝晖,陈玉. 蜂蛰伤导致多器官功能障碍综合征研究进展[J]. 海南医学,2020,31(11): 1477-1480.
12
蔡斌,郑慧君,丰睿,等. 不同评分方法对综合ICU患者病死率的诊断价值[J/CD]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版),2020,13(5): 367-369.
13
徐婷. 血清乳酸联合危重病评分对胡蜂蛰伤致MODS患者的预后评估[D]. 南充:川北医学院,2020.
14
刘晓原,裴源源,朱继红. 脓毒性休克致急性肾损伤患者的危险因素分析[J/CD]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版),2018,11(6): 366-371.
15
Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit[J]. JAMA, 2017, 317 (3): 290-300.
16
张萍,宋小炜,杨丽南,等. 不同蜂种蜂蛰伤致病及蜂毒毒理特点的研究进展[J]. 西南国防医药,2016,26(4): 447-449.
17
中国毒理学会中毒与救治专业委员会,中华医学会湖北省急诊医学分会,湖北省中毒与职业病联盟. 胡蜂螫伤规范化诊治中国专家共识[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2018,30(9): 819-823.
18
Sahiner UM, Durham SR. Hymenoptera venom allergy: how does venom immunotherapy prevent anaphylaxis from bee and wasp stings?[J]. Front Immunol, 2019 (10): 1959.
19
Baracchi D, Francese S, Turillazzi S. Beyond the antipredatory defence: honey bee venom function as a component of social immunity[J]. Toxicon, 2011, 58 (6-7): 550-557.
20
闫云云. 胡蜂蛰伤致凝血功能障碍临床特征及其危险因素分析[D]. 遵义:遵义医学院,2017.
21
陆元兰,王树洪,程云,等. 肝损伤对多发伤合并胆红素升高程度的影响[J]. 中国社区医师,2016,32(19): 124,126.
22
Yoshino S, Hamasaki S, Ishida S, et al. Characterization of the effect of serum bilirubin concentrations on coronary endothelial function via measurement of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol[J]. Heart Vessels, 2013, 28 (2): 157-165.
23
曹瑛,栾正刚,王亮,等. 脓毒症相关肝损伤临床特点及预后分析[J]. 中国实用内科杂志,2019,39(2): 163-167.
24
Kim JY, An HJ, Kim WH, et al. Apamin suppresses biliary fibrosis and activation of hepatic stellate cells[J]. Int J Mol Med, 2017, 39 (5): 1188-1194.
[1] 张超, 张珍, 马梁, 穆欢欢, 刘彩玲. 腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术术后C级胰瘘患者临床特征及影响因素研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 675-678.
[2] 韩婧, 郝少龙, 康骅. 北京市单中心甲状腺癌患者临床特征的回顾分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 490-493.
[3] 兰华, 高丽莎, 申明, 张铭光. 内镜黏膜下剥离术后溃疡出血的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 467-469.
[4] 刘璐璐, 何羽. 慢性阻塞性肺病患者睡眠障碍的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 836-839.
[5] 公宇, 廖媛, 尚梅. 肝细胞癌TACE术后复发影响因素及预测模型建立[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 818-824.
[6] 陈宗杰, 胡添松. 肝外伤破裂患者治疗后胆漏发生影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 836-840.
[7] 邓万玉, 陈富, 许磊波. 肝硬化与非肝硬化乙肝相关性肝癌患者术后无复发生存比较及其影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 670-674.
[8] 何慧玲, 鲁祖斌, 冯嘉莉, 梁声强. 术前外周血NLR和PLR对结肠癌术后肝转移的影响[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 682-687.
[9] 王贝贝, 崔振义, 王静, 王晗妍, 吕红芝, 李秀婷. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者术后贫血预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 355-362.
[10] 房桂彬, 肖进, 傅光涛, 郑秋坚. 老年髋部骨折患者术后1年行走能力的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 273-280.
[11] 单良, 刘怡, 于涛, 徐丽. 老年股骨颈骨折术后患者心理弹性现状及影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 294-300.
[12] 王如海, 王绅, 张敏, 李春, 韩超, 于强, 胡海成, 李习珍. 重型创伤性脑损伤患者去骨瓣减压术后短期死亡风险的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(05): 285-291.
[13] 陶金华, 陈珊珊, 陈晓四. 阿帕替尼联合替吉奥治疗晚期食管癌的疗效与安全性影响因素评价[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 325-329.
[14] 胡云鹤, 周玉焯, 付瑞瑛, 于凡, 李爱东. CHS-DRG付费制度下GB1分组住院费用影响因素分析与管理策略探讨[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 568-574.
[15] 黄晓云, 姚雅极. 院前急救医师职业寿命影响因素与对策思考[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 281-285.
阅读次数
全文


摘要