摘要 目的 观察分析重症超声指导下液体复苏对脓毒性休克患者炎症因子和免疫功能的影响,为临床治疗提供理论依据。 方法 选取沧州市人民医院2014年7月至2018年2月就诊的脓毒性休克患者152例,按照随机数字表法分为观察组(76例)和对照组(76例)。观察组在重症超声指导下给予液体复苏,对照组给予常规方法进行液体复苏。 观察患者住院时间、住ICU时间、机械通气时间及28 d病死率;比较治疗前后组织灌注指标[平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、中心静脉血氧饱和度(ScvO2)]的变化情况,同时分析患者治疗前及治疗6 h、24 h、72 h血清炎症因子[肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-1β(IL-1β)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、白细胞介素-10(IL-10)]和免疫功能(CD4+、CD8+、IgA、IgG)水平。 结果 观察组患者住院时间、住ICU时间、机械通气时间及28 d病死率明显低于对照组[(21.82±6.36)d vs.(24.13±7.11)d, t=2.111,P=0.036;(153.25±28.16)h vs.(217.07±34.22)h,t=12.554,P<0.001;(21.68±5.31)h vs.(32.81±6.55)h,t=11.607,P<0.001;3.95%(3/76)vs. 13.16%(10/76),χ2=4.122,P=0.042]。治疗前两组患者组织灌注指标(MAP、CVP、ScvO2)、炎症因子(TNF-α、IL-1β、IL-6、IL-10)和免疫功能(CD4+、CD8+、IgA、IgG)水平比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后观察组MAP、CVP和ScvO2的水平明显高于对照组[(75.89±11.36)mm Hg vs. (72.10±10.98)mm Hg,t=2.091,P=0.038;(10.51±2.03)mm Hg vs. (9.08±2.52)mm Hg, t=3.852,P=0.002;(78.27±5.17)% vs.(75.62±5.02)%,t=3.206,P=0.002]。治疗24 h、72 h观察组血清TNF-α、IL-1β、IL-6、IL-10水平明显低于对照组[pg/mL(TNF-α:209.31±27.02 vs. 257.03±25.98,t=11.098,P<0.001;106.32±17.69 vs. 152.13±19.08,t=15.349,P<0.001);(IL-1β72.33±16.83 vs. 79.95±17.06,t=2.772,P=0.006;45.96±14.03 vs.51.33±15.31,t=2.254,P=0.026);(IL-6:126.34±23.48 vs. 149.87±25.06,t=5.973,P<0.001;80.65±18.93 vs. 105.20±20.33,t=7.705,P<0.001);(IL-10:40.11±14.03 vs. 45.30±13.64,t=2.312,P=0.022;31.25±10.15 vs. 38.46±10.86,t=4.228,P<0.001)],而CD4+、IgA、IgG水平高于对照组[CD4+(%):34.95±6.87 vs. 31.88±7.16,t=2.697,P=0.008;43.01±7.22 vs. 38.26±7.60,t=3.950,P<0.001。 IgA(g/L):1.70±0.36 vs. 1.56±0.27,t=2.712,P=0.008;1.93±0.49vs. 1.77±0.38,t=2.249,P=0.026)。 IgG(g/L):7.66±1.29 vs.7.10±1.38,t=2.584,P=0.011;8.99±1.47 vs. 8.50±1.39,t=2.111,P=0.036]。 结论 重症超声指导下液体复苏能明显降低脓毒症休克患者住院时间、住ICU时间、机械通气时间及28 d病死率,同时改善患者组织灌注,减轻炎症因子,提高免疫功能,重症超声对脓毒性休克患者液体复苏具有一定的临床价值。
要莉莉,马永峰,贾丽静,段希洁,张丽,张婷婷,张昊. 重症超声指导下液体复苏对脓毒性休克患者炎症因子和免疫功能的影响[J]. 中国急救医学, 2019, 39(1): 48-52.
Yao Li-li, Ma Yong-feng, Jia Li-jing, Duan Xi-jie, Zhang Li, Zhang Ting-ting, Zhang Hao. Effect of fluid resuscitation guided by severe ultrasound on inflammatory factors and immune function in patients with septic shock. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 2019, 39(1): 48-52.
[1]Burgdorff AM, Bucher M, Schumann J. Vasoplegia in patients with sepsis and septic shock: pathways and mechanisms[J]. J Int Med Res, 2018, 46(4): 1303-1310.
[2]Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2017, 43(3): 304-377.
[3]Wu X, Hu Z, Yuan H, et al. Fluid Resuscitation and Markers of gGycocalyx Degradation in Severe Sepsis[J]. Open Med (Wars), 2017, 12: 409-416.
[4]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.
[5]Dong W, Zhang GN, Qu F. Effects of Ringer′s sodium pyruvate solution on serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 upon septic shock[J]. Pak J Med Sci, 2015, 31(3): 672-677.
[6]Venet F, Demaret J, Blaise B J, et al. IL-7 restores T lymphocyte immunometabolic failure in septic shock patients through mTOR activation[J]. J Immunol, 2017, 199(5): 1606-1615.
[7]中华医学会重症医学分会. 中国严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克治疗指南(2014)[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2015(6): 401-426.
[8]Garg M, Sen J, Goyal S, et al. Comparative evaluation of central venous pressure and sonographic inferior vena cava variability in assessing fluid responsiveness in septic shock[J]. Indian J Crit Care Med, 2016, 20(12): 708-713.
[9]Schefold JC, Storm C, Bercker S, et al. Inferior vena cava diameter correlates with invasive hemodynamic measures in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients with sepsis[J]. J Emerg Med, 2010, 38(5): 632-637.
[10]Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41(9): 1529-1537.
[11]Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense[J]. Crit Care Med, 2013, 41(7): 1774-1781.
[12]吕立文,唐宇涛,罗丽,等. 感染性休克患者应用重症超声与连续心排血量监测(PiCCO)对比监测指导液体复苏的应用[J]. 中国医药导刊, 2017, 19(4): 325-326, 328.
[13]李军,张锋利,吐尔滚·艾沙,等. 血液净化对脓毒症患者凝血功能及免疫功能的影响[J]. 中国免疫学杂志, 2016, 32(11): 1661-1666.
[14]桂海波,杜晓刚,陈雪梅. T淋巴细胞凋亡在脓毒症患者免疫抑制和预后中的作用[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2016, 15(7): 738-746.[15]孟祥忠,张晓宁,朱宇,等. 重症脓毒症休克患者免疫状况的临床分析[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2018, 22(1): 4-6.
[16]卢露,潘国权,汤鲁明,等. PICCO指导下液体复苏对脓毒症休克患者免疫功能及炎症介质的影响[J]. 中华全科医学, 2017, 15(4): 562-564.