切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 189 -194. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2018.03.007

所属专题: 文献

论著

重度烧伤患者早期应激性高血糖的危险因素及其对预后的影响
张斌杰1, 周丽娜1,()   
  1. 1. 716000 延安市人民医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2018-02-26 出版日期:2018-06-01
  • 通信作者: 周丽娜

Risk factors of early stress hyperglycemia in patients with severe burn and the influence on the prognosis

Binjie Zhang1, Li′na Zhou1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Yan′an People′s Hospital, Yan′an 716000, China
  • Received:2018-02-26 Published:2018-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Li′na Zhou
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhou Li′na, Email:
引用本文:

张斌杰, 周丽娜. 重度烧伤患者早期应激性高血糖的危险因素及其对预后的影响[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2018, 13(03): 189-194.

Binjie Zhang, Li′na Zhou. Risk factors of early stress hyperglycemia in patients with severe burn and the influence on the prognosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2018, 13(03): 189-194.

目的

分析引起重度烧伤患者早期应激高血糖的危险因素,并总结危险因素与患者预后的关系。

方法

收集2014年5月至2017年3月延安市人民医院骨科78例重度烧伤患者为研究对象,根据入院72 h血糖计算平均血糖波动幅度(MAGE),并分为低值组(MAGE<3.3 mmol/L, n=18)、中值组(3.3 mmol/L≤MAGE<5.5 mmol/L, n=37)、高值组(MAGE≥5.5 mmol/L, n=23),比较3组患者一般资料,如性别、年龄、体重、烧伤病因、格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、呼吸道烧伤情况、烧伤总面积、急性生理与慢性健康评估(APACHE)Ⅱ评分等,并比较生化指标,如降钙素原(PCT)、C反应蛋白(CRP)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO2),统计病死例数、并发症发生情况。计数资料多组间比较使用χ2检验;计量资料多组间比较采用方差分析,两组间比较采用LSD法;采用多因素logistic回归分析应激性高血糖的诱发因素,对生存曲线行Log-rank检验,判断MAGE与预后的关系。

结果

高值组PCT、CRP、烧伤总面积依次为(9.2±1.8) ng/mL、(58.3±10.6) mg/L、(76.7±15.3)%总体表面积(TBSA),均显著高于中值组[(6.7±1.3) ng/mL、(42.5±8.7) ng/mL、(65.4±13.5) %TBSA]、低值组[(5.3±1.2) ng/mL、(37.4±7.9) ng/mL、(62.7±12.4) %TBSA],差异均有统计学意义(t中值组=6.238、6.286、2.995,t低值组=7.909、6.978、3.153;P值均小于0.05);且高值组APACHE Ⅱ评分、GCS依次为(22.1±4.3)、(13.5±2.7)分,均显著高于低值组(17.5±3.4)、(9.4±2.1)分,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.716、5.304,P值均小于0.05);CRP、PCT、烧伤总面积均是影响患者早期应激性高血糖的独立危险因素(P值均小于0.05);低值组、中值组、高值组90 d内存活率分别为94.4%(17/18)、86.5%(32/37)、69.6%(16/23),MAGE预测患者预后的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线面积为0.825,最佳阈值为4.8 mmol/L,对病死预测的灵敏度、特异度分别为86.8%、87.9%;组间比较,高值组感染、急性应激性溃疡发生率依次为82.6%、78.3%,均显著高于低值组(22.2%、33.3%)、中值组(51.4%、45.9%),差异均有统计学意义(χ感染2=14.951、5.967, χ急性应激性溃疡2=8.398、6.064; P值均小于0.017)。

结论

重度烧伤患者早期应激性高血糖水平与炎性因子及烧伤面积有关,且早期应激血糖越高,其预后越差,早期应激性高血糖可作为评估患者预后的指标之一。

Objective

To analyze the risk factors for early stress hyperglycemia in patients with severe burn and the relationship between the risk factors and the prognosis.

Methods

Seventy-eight patients with severe burn who were admitted to Department of Orthopedics, Yan′an People′s Hospital during May 2014 to March 2017 were selected as the subjects. The mean amplitude of glycemic excursions(MAGE) was calculated according to the blood glucose in 72 h after admission. The patients were divided into low value group (MAGE<3.3 mmol/L, n=18), median value group (3.3 mmol/L≤MAGE<5.5 mmol/L, n=37) and high value group (MAGE≥5.5 mmol/L, n=23) according to the calculated value. The general data, such as gender, age, weight, causes of burn, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), respiratory tract burn, total area of burn and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱscore were compered. Biochemical indexes, such as procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and arterial partial pressure of CO2(PaCO2) of the three groups were compared, too. The number of death cases and the incidence of complications were statistically analyzed. The enumeration data in multi-group were analyzed by chi-square test, while the measurement data in multi-group were analyzed by analysis of variance. The LSD method were used in the comparison of two groups. The inducing factors of stress hyperglycemia were analyzed by multivariate logistic aggression analysis, and the survival curve was analyzed by Log-rank test to judge the relationship between MAGE and the prognosis.

Results

The PCT, CRP and the total area of burn in the high value group [(9.2±1.8) ng/mL, (58.3±10.6) mg/L, (76.7±15.3) % total body surface area(TBSA)]were significantly higher than those in the median value group [(6.7±1.3) ng/mL, (42.5±8.7) mg/L, (65.4±13.5)% TBSA] and low value group [(5.3±1.2) ng/mL, (37.4±7.9) mg/L, (62.7±12.4)% TBSA], the differences were statistically significant (tmedian value group=6.238, 6.286, 2.995, t low value group=7.909, 6.978, 3.153; with P values below 0.05). The APACHEⅡ score and GCS of the high value group [(22.1±4.3) and (13.5±2.7) points] were significantly higher than those of the low value group [(17.5±3.4) and (9.4±2.1) points], the differences were statistically significant (t=3.716, 5.304; with P values below 0.05). CRP, PCT and the total area of burn were independent risk factors of early stress hyperglycemia (with P values below 0.05). The 90 d survival rates of the low value group, the median value group and the high value group were 94.4% (17/18), 86.5% (32/37) and 69.6% (16/23), respectively. The area under receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve of MAGE in predicting the prognosis of patients was 0.825, and the optimal threshold was 4.8 mmol/L. The sensitivity and specificity in predicting death were 86.8% and 87.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of infection and acute stress ulcer in the high value group (82.6%, 78.3%) were significantly higher than those in the low value group (22.2%, 33.3%) and the median value group (51.4%, 45.9%) ( χ infection2=14.951, 5.967, χ acute stress ulcer2=8.398, 6.064; with P values below 0.017).

Conclusions

The level of stress hyperglycemia in patients with severe burn is related to inflammatory factors and the area of burn. The higher the early stress glucose is, the worse the prognosis is. Early stress hyperglycemia can be used as an indicator for evaluating the prognosis.

表1 3组不同MAGE的重度烧伤患者一般资料比较
表2 影响重度烧伤患者早期应激性高血糖多因素分析
图1 不同MAGE重度烧伤患者生存曲线图。MAGE 为平均血糖波动幅度
图2 早期MAGE预测患者90 d内死亡的ROC曲线。MAGE为平均血糖波动幅度;ROC为受试者工作特征
表3 不同MAGE重度烧伤患者并发症发生情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Fagan SP, Bilodeau ML, Goverman J. Burn intensive care[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2014, 94(4):765-779.
[2]
Xu H, Yu YM, Ma H, et al. Glucose metabolism during the early "flow phase" after burn injury[J]. J Surg Res, 2013, 179(1):83-90.
[3]
周春兰,刘桂蓉,李岚岚,等. 心理护理对Ⅱ-Ⅲ度烧伤患者临床疗效的观察[J]. 国际精神病学杂志,2016, 43(3):572-574.
[4]
江华. 危重症患者的应激性高血糖、营养治疗与血糖管理[J]. 中国糖尿病杂志,2015, 7(2):71-72.
[5]
黄志刚,叶敏,吴继英,等. 短期强化血糖控制对重症感染合并应激性高血糖患者血糖变异性及预后的影响[J]. 疑难病杂志,2015, 14(6):582-585.
[6]
周丽萍,黄凯,杨丽花,等. 心胸外科患者术后发生应激性高血糖的危险因素分析[J].广西医科大学学报,2017, 34(7):1089-1091.
[7]
Peffer J, Mclaughlin C. The correlation of early hyperglycemia with outcomes in adult trauma patients: a systematic review[J]. J Spec Oper Med, 2013, 13(4):34-39.
[8]
罗红敏. 目前的血糖控制方案并不能改善严重烧伤后应激性高血糖患儿的预后[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2014, 26(9):688-688.
[9]
李俊聪,胡超,杨红明,等. 乌司他丁对严重烧伤患者免疫功能的影响[J]. 中华烧伤杂志,2016, 32(6):345-350.
[10]
左璐,李伟人,鲁加祥,等. 严重烧伤后早期大鼠血糖测量方法探讨[J]. 中华内分泌外科杂志,2016, 10(6):483-486.
[11]
李文武,欧阳艳红. 短期强化血糖控制对重症感染合并应激性高血糖患者免疫机能、炎症因子和预后的影响[J]. 免疫学杂志,2017, 33(10):896-904.
[12]
赵允召,田涛. 外科感染病人血糖管理[J]. 中国实用外科杂志,2016, 36(2):153-155.
[13]
徐剑锋,郭芝廷,毛越,等. 集束化呼吸治疗在烧伤合并中重度吸入性损伤患者气道管理中的应用[J]. 中华烧伤杂志,2015, 31(2):140-142.
[14]
Szentgyorgyi L, Shepherd C, Dunn KW, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe respiratory failure resulting from burns and smoke inhalation injury[J]. Burns, 2018, pill:S0305-4179(18)30062-30067. [Epub ahead of print].
[15]
王祎明. 脑血管病急性期应激性高血糖与预后的关系[J]. 临床医学研究与实践,2017, 2(6):56-57.
[16]
赵瑾,冯宪真,冯丽丽,等. 常规和强化胰岛素控制危重患者应激性高血糖过程中低血糖发生率比较[J]. 医学临床研究,2015, 32(3):581-582.
[17]
孙勇,范薇,王光军,等. 胰岛素强化治疗对重度烧伤并发应激性高血糖老年患者早期认知功能及预后的影响[J]. 创伤外科杂志,2016, 18(9):549-552.
[18]
张勇,蔡斌,江华,等. 采用核磁共振波谱技术筛选严重烧伤患者代谢紊乱的生物靶标[J]. 中华烧伤杂志,2015, 31(5):398-399.
[19]
张晓芳,刘方竹,刘明建. 血流感染的危险因素分析及其与早期炎症因子相关性研究[J]. 中国现代医学杂志,2015, 25(11):51-54.
[20]
臧芝栋,严正,惠皎洁,等. 平均血糖波动幅度对严重烧伤患者预后的意义[J]. 中华烧伤杂志,2016, 32(1):35-39.
[1] 姚咏明. 如何精准评估烧伤脓毒症患者免疫状态[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 552-552.
[2] 涂家金, 廖武强, 刘金晶, 涂志鹏, 毛远桂. 严重烧伤患者鲍曼不动杆菌血流感染的危险因素及预后分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 491-497.
[3] 王成, 张慧君, 覃凤均, 陈辉. 网状植皮与ReCell表皮细胞种植在深Ⅱ度烧伤治疗中的疗效对比[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 498-502.
[4] 马伟强, 马斌林, 吴中语, 张莹. microRNA在三阴性乳腺癌进展中发挥的作用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 111-114.
[5] 张生军, 赵阿静, 李守博, 郝祥宏, 刘敏丽. 高糖通过HGF/c-met通路促进结直肠癌侵袭和迁移的实验研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 21-24.
[6] 杨倩, 李翠芳, 张婉秋. 原发性肝癌自发性破裂出血急诊TACE术后的近远期预后及影响因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 33-36.
[7] 栗艳松, 冯会敏, 刘明超, 刘泽鹏, 姜秋霞. STIP1在三阴性乳腺癌组织中的表达及临床意义研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 52-56.
[8] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[9] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[10] 钟广俊, 刘春华, 朱万森, 徐晓雷, 王兆军. MRI联合不同扫描序列在胃癌术前分期诊断及化疗效果和预后的评估[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 378-382.
[11] 李永胜, 孙家和, 郭书伟, 卢义康, 刘洪洲. 高龄结直肠癌患者根治术后短期并发症及其影响因素[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 962-967.
[12] 王军, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 索利斌, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 腹膜后肿瘤切除术中大量输血患者的麻醉管理特点与分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 844-849.
[13] 索利斌, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 王军, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 原发性腹膜后副神经节瘤切除术麻醉管理的特点和分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 771-776.
[14] 李瑞琦, 吴子健, 吴杰斌, 任佳佳, 翟敬芳. 动脉血气分析判读Excel电子表格在实习生酸碱平衡紊乱教学中的应用[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 737-743.
[15] 张敏洁, 张小杉, 段莎莎, 施依璐, 赵捷, 白天昊, 王雅晳. 氢气治疗心肌缺血再灌注损伤的作用机制及展望[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 744-748.
阅读次数
全文


摘要