急性胰腺炎患者血浆磷脂酶A2的变化及维拉帕米的治疗效应

目的观察急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)患者血浆磷脂酶A2(phospholipase A2,PLA2)的变化,探讨其在胰腺和器官功能损伤中的作用及维拉帕米(verapamil)的治疗效应。方法符合AP诊断患者48例,随机分成维拉帕米治疗组和常规治疗组,分别在治疗前(入院时)、治疗后第2、4天清晨空腹抽肘静脉血4mL,测定血浆PLA2活性、血清淀粉酶和血钙含量,并设对照组。结果AP患者血清淀粉酶活性显著高于对照组(P<0.01),维拉帕米治疗组血清淀粉酶活性明显低于常规治疗组(P<0.05或P<0.01);AP患者血浆PLA2活性显著高于对照组(P<0.01),维拉帕米治疗组血浆PLA2活性明显低于常规治疗组(P<0.05或P<0.01);AP患者血钙浓度明显降低,与对照组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),维拉帕米治疗组血钙浓度明显高于常规治疗组(P<0.05或P<0.01);维拉帕米治疗组发生多器官功能不全病例明显少于常规治疗组(P<0.01)。结论PLA2在AP及并发器官功能损伤的病理过程中发挥重要的作用,维拉帕米可以通过钙通道拮抗作用抑制PLA2的活性,减轻胰腺及器官功能的损伤而发挥治疗作用。     

睡前加服H2-受体拮抗剂抑制夜间酸突破的系统评价

目的继2004年系统评价之后,对睡前加服H2-受体拮抗剂抑制夜间酸突破的疗效和安全性进行再评价。方法计算机检索Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库、MEDLINE、EMbase、中国生物医学文献数据库,手工检索8种相关中文期刊和所获文献的参考文献,全面收集全世界关于睡前加服H2-受体拮抗剂抑制夜间酸突破的临床随机对照试验,并按照Cochrane协作网的方法进行系统评价。结果仅有2篇随机对照交叉试验包括32例受试者符合纳入标准,由于这2个研究在设计及药物的剂量和疗程存在较大差别,无法进行Meta分析,仅进行定性的系统评价。这2个研究对睡前加服H2-受体拮抗剂抑制夜间酸突破的疗效没有一致性的结论。结论基于目前的证据尚不能确定睡前加服H2-受体拮抗剂能有效抑制夜间酸突破的发生,还需要大样本、高质量,且随访时间足够的随机对照试验来提供证据。     

Comparison of the systematic Inflammatory response syndrome and the quick sequential organ failure assessment for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department: A systematic review

BackgroundAwareness and prompt recognition of sepsis are essential for nurses working in the emergency department (ED), enabling them to make an initial assessment of patients and then to sort them according to their condition s severity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department by comparing the previous sepsis-2 screening tool, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and the current sepsis-3 screening tool, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).MethodsThis systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors.ResultsFive articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS.ConclusionThe overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.