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) ›› 2023, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (02) : 105 -110. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6880.2023.02.003

论著

重症急性胰腺炎继发脓毒症的危险因素分析
杨晶, 高青()   
  1. 400010 重庆,重庆医科大学附属第一医院消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-14 出版日期:2023-04-30
  • 通信作者: 高青

Risk factors for sepsis secondary to severe acute pancreatitis

Jing Yang, Qing Gao()   

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400010, China
  • Received:2022-03-14 Published:2023-04-30
  • Corresponding author: Qing Gao
引用本文:

杨晶, 高青. 重症急性胰腺炎继发脓毒症的危险因素分析[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 105-110.

Jing Yang, Qing Gao. Risk factors for sepsis secondary to severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 16(02): 105-110.

目的

探讨重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)继发脓毒症的高危因素,为临床早期识别和诊治提供一些临床依据。

方法

回顾性分析重庆医科大学附属第一医院2013年1月至2020年12月诊断为SAP的362例患者的临床资料。根据患者是否继发脓毒症将其分为脓毒症组(157例)和非脓毒症组(205例),探讨SAP继发脓毒症的危险因素。采用单因素分析及多因素Logistic逐步回归法分析SAP继发脓毒症的独立危险因素。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,计算曲线下面积(AUC),评估各指标预测SAP继发脓毒症的效能。

结果

157例SAP继发脓毒症患者中检出331株病原菌,其中细菌共258株(77.95%)。脓毒症组及非脓毒症组SAP患者白细胞计数、血小板计数、血小板/淋巴细胞比率、白蛋白、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)、肌酐、D-二聚体、降钙素原、急性病生理学和长期健康评价(APACHE)Ⅱ评分、序贯器官衰竭估计评分、住院时间、住ICU时间及机械通气时间比较,差异均有统计学意义(P均< 0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,AST[比值比(OR)= 1.004,95%置信区间(CI)(1.001,1.008),P = 0.017]、APACHEⅡ评分[OR = 1.102,95%CI(1.040,1.166),P = 0.001]、住院时间[OR = 1.017,95%CI(1.000,1.033),P = 0.042]、机械通气时间[OR = 1.080,95%CI(1.027,1.136),P = 0.003]为SAP患者继发脓毒症的独立危险因素。其AUC分别为0.678、0.723、0.596、0.726,预测的最佳截断值分别为60.5 U/L、15.5分、28.5 d、4.5 d。此外,脓毒症组患者的病死率较非脓毒症组显著升高[9.55%(15/157)vs. 2.44%(5/205),χ2 = 13.205,P = 0.001]。

结论

入院时AST > 60.5 U/L、APACHEⅡ评分> 15.5分、住院时间> 28.5 d、机械通气时间> 4.5 d的SAP患者易发生脓毒症。

Objective

To analyze risk factors of sepsis secondary to severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and to provide lessons for its early clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Methods

From January 2013 to August 2020, a total of 362 patients diagnosed with SAP at the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were enrolled. The patients were divided into a sepsis group (157 cases) and a non-sepsis group (205 cases) according to whether they had secondary sepsis. Univariate analysis and multivariate Logistic regression were used to analyze independent risk factors of sepsis secondary to SAP, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate their value in predicting SAP with sepsis.

Results

A total of 331 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected in the sepsis group, with 258 strains of bacteria (77.95%). The leucocyte count, platelet count, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatinine, D-dimer, procalcitonin, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱ score, sequential organ failure assessment score, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation were statistically significantly different in the sepsis and non-sepsis groups (all P < 0.05). The multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that the AST [odds ratio (OR) = 1.004, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.001, 1.008), P = 0.017], APACHEⅡ score [OR = 1.102, 95%CI (1.040, 1.166), P = 0.001], length of hospital stay [OR = 1.017, 95%CI (1.000, 1.033), P = 0.042], and duration of mechanical ventilation [OR = 1.080, 95%CI (1.027, 1.136), P = 0.003] were independent risk factors for SAP with sepsis. The area under the curve of AST, APACHEⅡ score, length of hospital stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation was 0.678, 0.723, 0.596, and 0.726, and their cut-off value at 60.5 U/L, 15.5, 28.5 d, and 4.5 d was most effective in predicting sepsis secondary to SAP. In addition, patients in the sepsis group had a significantly higher mortality rate compared to the non-sepsis group [9.55% (15/157) vs. 2.44% (5/205), χ2 = 13.205, P = 0.001].

Conclusion

SAP patients with AST > 60.5 U/L, APACHEⅡ score > 15.5, hospitalization time > 28.5 d, and mechanical ventilation time > 4.5 d were prone to develop sepsis in the later period.

表1 SAP继发脓毒症的单因素分析[MP25P75)]
组别 例数 性别[例(%)] 病因[例(%)] 行CRRT[例(%)] 年龄(岁)
胆源性 非胆源性
脓毒症组 157 102(64.97) 55(35.03) 52(33.12) 105(66.88) 138(87.90) 19(12.10) 48(41,58)
非脓毒症组 205 131(63.90) 74(36.10) 49(23.90) 156(76.10) 165(80.49) 40(19.51) 45(38,54)
t/Z/χ2   0.444 3.756 3.578 1.614
P   0.834 0.053 0.059 0.107
组别 例数 白细胞计数(× 109/L) 血小板计数(× 109/L) NLR PLR 白蛋白[g/L, ± s] AST(U/L) 肌酐(μmol/L)
脓毒症组 157 15.55(11.84,20.02) 100(77,121) 15.26(9.86,26.65) 120.87(71.94,185.51) 26 ± 4 88(39,243) 115(67,229)
非脓毒症组 205 14.49(10.78,16.88) 109(82,144) 16.48(10.08,22.34) 133.33(103.48,199.39) 27 ± 5 48(29,93) 74(54,117)
t/Z/χ2   2.085 4.892 8.882 3.314 4.095 5.553 5.554
P   0.037 < 0.001 0.378 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
组别 例数 D-二聚体(mg/L) 降钙素原(μg/L) APACHEⅡ评分(分, ± s SOFA评分(分) 住院时间(d) 住ICU时间(d) 机械通气时间(d)
脓毒症组 157 8.81(4.97,13.39) 4.52(1.12,22.35) 18 ± 7 6(3,8) 26(18,38) 13(6,20) 8(3,16)
非脓毒症组 205 8.32(3.91,13.56) 1.87(0.59,8.63) 14 ± 5 4(3,6) 21(16,27) 7(3,11) 3(0,5)
t/Z/χ2   3.474 3.709 7.408 4.984 3.609 7.848 7.578
P   < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
表2 SAP继发脓毒症的Logistic多因素回归分析
图1 AST、APACHEⅡ评分、住院时长、机械通气时间预测SAP继发脓毒症ROC曲线注:AST.天冬氨酸氨基转移酶;APACHE.急性病生理学和长期健康评价;SAP.重症急性胰腺炎;ROC.受试者工作特征
表3 AST、APACHEⅡ评分、住院时长、机械通气时间预测SAP继发脓毒症的效能
1
Leppaniemi A, Tolonen M, Tarasconi A, et al. 2019 WSES guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis[J]. World J Emerg Surg, 2019 (14): 27.
2
Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, et al. Sepsis and septic shock[J]. Lancet, 2018, 392 (10141): 75-87.
3
Paoli CJ, Reynolds MA, Sinha M, et al. Epidemiology and costs of sepsis in the United States-an analysis based on timing of diagnosis and severity level[J]. Crit Care Med, 2018, 46 (12): 1889-1897.
4
中华医学会消化病学分会胰腺疾病学组,中华胰腺病杂志编辑委员会,中华消化杂志编辑委员会.中国急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2019年,沈阳)[J].中华消化杂志201939(11):721-730.
5
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)[J]. JAMA, 2016, 315 (8): 801-810.
6
Li X, Li L, Liu L, et al. Risk factors of multidrug resistant pathogens induced infection in severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Shock, 2020, 53 (3): 293-298.
7
陈芳,高青.重症急性胰腺炎继发感染的病原菌及相关危险因素分析[J].中华消化杂志201939(12):846-849.
8
Dickson K, Lehmann C. Inflammatory response to diff-erent toxins in experimental sepsis models[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2019, 20 (18): 4341.
9
Wang Y, Liu W, Liu X, et al. Role of liver in modulating the release of inflammatory cytokines involved in lung and multiple organ dysfunction in severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Cell Biochem Biophys, 2015, 71 (2): 765-776.
10
颜骏,蔡燕,张清艳,等.脓毒症早期肠道菌群失调相关危险因素及其对预后的影响[J/CD].中华危重症医学杂志(电子版)202013(5):328-333.
11
常泽楠,温仕宏,张义楠,等.脓毒症中内皮细胞高通透性的机制研究进展[J/CD].中华危重症医学杂志(电子版)202215(4):337-342.
12
Ma HX, He L, Cai SW, et al. Analysis of the spectrum and resistance of pathogen causing sepsis in patients with severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2017, 55 (5): 378-383.
13
Tian X, Pi YP, Liu XL, et al. Supplemented use of pre-, pro-, and synbiotics in severe acute pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2018 (9): 690.
14
Rao SC, Athalye-Jape GK, Deshpande GC, et al. Probiotic supplementation and late-onset sepsis in preterm infants: a meta-analysis[J]. Pediatrics, 2016, 137 (3): e20153684.
15
Kubes P, Jenne C. Immune responses in the liver[J]. Annu Rev Immunol, 2018 (36): 247-277.
16
Al-Khafaji AB, Tohme S, Yazdani HO, et al. Superoxide induces neutrophil extracellular trap formation in a TLR-4 and NOX-dependent mechanism[J]. Mol Med, 2016 (22): 621-631.
17
Escobar-Arellano R, Guraieb-Barragán E, Mansanares-Hernández A, et al. Sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the POP score vs. APACHEⅡ score as predictors of severe acute biliary pancreatitis[J]. Cir Cir, 2019, 87 (4): 402-409.
18
Kuo WK, Hua CC, Yu CC, et al. The cancer control status and APACHEⅡ score are prognostic factors for critically ill patients with cancer and sepsis[J]. J Formos Med Assoc, 2020, 119 (1 Pt 2): 276-281.
19
Liu X, Shen Y, Wang H, et al. Prognostic significance of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with sepsis: a prospective observational study[J]. Mediators Inflamm, 2016 (2016): 8191254.
20
Salciccioli JD, Marshall DC, Pimentel MA, et al. The association between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and mortality in critical illness: an observational cohort study[J]. Crit Care, 2015, 19 (1): 13.
21
黄颖,寿松涛,王军,等.脓毒症与免疫细胞凋亡相关研究进展[J/CD].中华危重症医学杂志(电子版)201710(4):270-273.
[1] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[2] 马艳波, 华扬, 刘桂梅, 孟秀峰, 崔立平. 中青年人颈动脉粥样硬化病变的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 822-826.
[3] 唐旭, 韩冰, 刘威, 陈茹星. 结直肠癌根治术后隐匿性肝转移危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 16-20.
[4] 吴方园, 孙霞, 林昌锋, 张震生. HBV相关肝硬化合并急性上消化道出血的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 45-47.
[5] 陈旭渊, 罗仕云, 李文忠, 李毅. 腺源性肛瘘经手术治疗后创面愈合困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 82-85.
[6] 李秉林, 吕少诚, 潘飞, 姜涛, 樊华, 寇建涛, 贺强, 郎韧. 供肝灌注液病原菌与肝移植术后早期感染的相关性分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 656-660.
[7] 侯超, 潘美辰, 吴文明, 黄兴广, 李翔, 程凌雪, 朱玉轩, 李文波. 早期食管癌及上皮内瘤变内镜黏膜下剥离术后食管狭窄的危险因素[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 383-387.
[8] 王小红, 钱晶, 翁文俊, 周国雄, 朱顺星, 祁小鸣, 刘春, 王萍, 沈伟, 程睿智, 秦璟灏. 巯基丙酮酸硫基转移酶调控核因子κB信号介导自噬对重症急性胰腺炎大鼠的影响及机制[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 422-426.
[9] 张雯, 宋牡丹, 邓雪婷, 张云. 强化营养支持辅助奥曲肽治疗肝硬化合并食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的疗效及再出血危险因素[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 456-460.
[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] 李达, 张大涯, 陈润祥, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 曾凡, 陈世锔, 白飞虎. 海南省东方市幽门螺杆菌感染现状的调查与相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 858-864.
[12] 卓徐鹏, 刘颖, 任菁菁. 感染性疾病与老年人低蛋白血症的相关性研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 896-899.
[13] 李静静, 翟蕾, 赵海平, 郑波. 多囊肾合并囊肿的多重耐药菌感染一例并文献复习[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 920-923.
[14] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
[15] 谭睿, 王晶, 於江泉, 郑瑞强. 脓毒症中高密度脂蛋白、载脂蛋白A-I和血清淀粉样蛋白A的作用研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 749-753.
阅读次数
全文


摘要