瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对冠脉介入术后肾功能的影响

目的 探讨瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对冠脉介入术后肾功能的影响.方法 入选2012年1月至2012年12月在北京电力医院接受冠脉造影和（或）冠脉介入治疗患者100例,术前被随机分为2组,一组（瑞舒伐他汀组）术前开始服用瑞舒伐他汀10 mg每晚1次,术后服用10 mg每晚一次维持,共入组50例;另一组（阿托伐他汀组）术前开始服用阿托伐他汀20 mg,术后服用20 mg每晚一次维持,共入组50例,观察术后48小时的估算肾小球滤过率（estimated GFR）.结果 2组间比较,瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对行介入后患者肾功能影响无明显差异,P＞0.05.结论 瑞舒伐他汀和阿托伐他汀均可提高肾小球滤过率,且两药对改善肾小球滤过率的作用没有显著差异,在eGFR＞60 ml/min/1.73 m2患者中介入前使用瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀是安全、有效的,值得在临床推广应用.     

超声造影评价瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对颈动脉斑块新生血管作用的比较

目的：使用超声造影比较瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对颈动脉软斑块新生血管的治疗效果。方法：对颈动脉软斑块患者,分别服用瑞舒伐他汀10mg/d或阿托伐他汀20mg/d,治疗6个月,利用血脂检查、常规超声及超声造影进行治疗前后相关指标的评估。结果：入选斑块数共80例,瑞舒伐他汀组与阿托伐他汀组血清总胆固醇（TC）、甘油三酯（TG）和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL-C）水平均显著低于治疗前（P<0.05）,瑞舒伐他汀组TC和LDL-C水平显著低于阿托伐他汀组（P<0.05）,但两组间TG水平无显著差别（P>0.05）。瑞舒伐他汀组与阿托伐他汀组斑块积分、增强强度（EI）及时间-强度曲线下面积（AUC）均显著低于治疗前（P<0.05）,瑞舒伐他汀组斑块积分、EI及AUC均显著低于阿托伐他汀组（P<0.05）。结论：瑞舒伐他汀及阿托伐他汀有确切降脂作用,均可有效减少颈动脉软斑块内的新生血管,且瑞舒伐他汀作用强于阿托伐他汀。     

瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对老年冠心病相关指标的影响

目的比较瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对老年冠心病的疗效及相关指标的影响。方法选择60例老年冠心病患者,试验组30例采取瑞舒伐他汀治疗,对照组30例采取阿托伐他汀治疗,均连续服用12个月,比较治疗前、治疗后6、12个月总胆固醇（TC）、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL-C）、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（HDL—C）、同型半胱氨酸（Hey）、超敏C反应蛋白（hs-CRP）、颈内动脉内膜中层厚度（IMT）等指标变化;对比不良反应发生率。结果TC、LDL．C、HDL—C、Hey、hs．CRP、IMT等指标水平治疗前两组相当（P均〉0．05）;治疗后6、12个月两组均较治疗前降低（P〈0．05,P〈0．01）,且瑞舒伐他汀组低于组阿托伐他汀组（P均〈0．05）。瑞舒伐他汀组不良反应发生率16．7％（5／30）低于对照组的46．7％（14／30,P〈0．05）。结论对老年冠心病患者瑞舒伐他汀较阿托伐他汀近期疗效更优,对血脂、炎症反应及颈内动脉IMT等指标的影响更明显,且安全性更高。     

他汀类药物的新用途

自1987年世界上第一个他汀类药物一洛伐他汀在美国默克公司问世以来，瑞典的辛伐他汀、日本的普伐他汀相继上市。目前全世界已上市的他汀类药物还有氟伐他汀、阿伐他汀、西立伐他汀、柏伐他汀、尼伐他汀等。1995年我国获准从国外进口的他汀类药物是洛伐他汀，现已有多种他汀类药物用于临床。他汀类药物的基本作用是调脂降压，目前国外还发现具有一些非降脂作用，现综合报道如下。     

缓释型氟伐他汀和速释胶囊型氟伐他汀对高脂血症患者动脉僵硬度影响的比较

目的探讨缓释型氟伐他汀和速释胶囊型氟伐他汀对高脂血症患者动脉僵硬度的影响。方法将139例混合型高脂血症患者按随机数字表法分为速释胶囊型氟伐他汀组（68例）和缓释型氟伐他汀组（71例）。速释胶囊型氟伐他汀组给予氟伐他汀40mg,口服,2次·d^-1,治疗12周;缓释型氟伐他汀组给予缓释型氟伐他汀80mg,口服,1次·d^-1,治疗12周。用SphygmoCor动脉脉搏波分析仪测定2组患者脉搏波传导速度（PWV）及增强指数（AIx）值,观察其数值的变化。结果缓释型氟伐他汀组治疗后,AIx及PWV数值均较速释胶囊型氟伐他汀组明显降低（均P〈0.05）。结论与速释胶囊型氟伐他汀相比,缓释型氟伐他汀更有效地降低动脉僵硬度。选择使用缓释型氟伐他汀治疗混合型高脂血症患者是较为合适的治疗方案。     

瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀治疗冠心病的疗效对比分析

选取2013年5月~2015年5月于本院就诊的冠心病患者共84例,患者按入院编号随机均分为观察组与对照组各42例,对照组给予阿托伐他汀治疗;观察组给予瑞舒伐他汀治疗,比较疗效。观察组患者接受治疗后,血脂水平变化情况明显优于对照组,且治疗总有效率(97.6%)明显高于对照组(81.0%),组间治疗效果比较具有明显差异(P0.05)。临床治疗冠心病,采用瑞舒伐他汀治疗可有效改善患者机体功能指标,提升治疗效果,值得推广。     

阿托伐他汀对心房颤动预防作用及其电生理机制的实验研究

目的探讨阿托伐他汀对心房颤动（房颤）电生理机制的影响。方法 30只新西兰大白兔随机分为对照组、房颤组和阿托伐他汀组,各10只。房颤组和阿托伐他汀组采用快速心房起搏（频率600次/min）制作急性房颤模型,对照组仅植入电极不起搏,阿托伐他汀组起搏前用阿托伐他汀2mg/（kg.d）灌胃7d。观察起搏0,4,8,12,16,20,24h时房颤诱发率、房颤持续时间、心房有效不应期和频率适应性的变化。结果起搏后8,12,16,20,24h房颤组和阿托伐他汀组房颤诱发率高于对照组（P〈0.05）,房颤组高于阿托伐他汀组（P〈0.05）;房颤组和阿托伐他汀组房颤持续时间较对照组延长（P〈0.05）,阿托伐他汀组房颤持续时间的延长较房颤组减少,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;与对照组比较,起搏4h后房颤组心房有效不应期缩短（P〈0.05）,心房有效不应期频率适应性降低（P〈0.05）,随起搏时间延长呈进行性加重;阿托伐他汀组起搏12h后心房有效不应期高于房颤组（P〈0.05）,起搏8h后心房有效不应期频率适应性的降低较房颤组减少（P〈0.05）。结论阿托伐他汀可有效抑制快速心房起搏兔心房肌的电重构,表现为抑制心房有效不应期缩短和心房有效不应期频率适应性不良,可有效预防房颤发生,但并不影响房颤维持时间。     

他汀类药物临床应用研究进展

<正>自1976年第一个他汀类药物美伐他汀问世以来,他汀类药物已发展至第3代,目前常用于临床的有:洛伐他汀、辛伐他汀、普伐他汀、氟伐他汀、阿托伐他汀,较新的     

不同他汀类药物对颈动脉硬化的影响

目的比较不同他汀类药物对颈动脉硬化（CAS）的影响。方法将120例颈动脉硬化患者随机分为两组：阿托伐他汀治疗组和辛伐他汀治疗组，每组各60例，治疗12周后观察其对颈动脉硬化的影响。结果两组治疗12周后均能显著降低血清总胆固醇（TC）、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL—C）、C反应蛋白（CRP）、基质金属蛋白酶9（MMP-9）、颈动脉膜中层厚度（CIMT）的水平，阿托伐他汀组治疗效果优于辛伐他汀组，有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论阿托伐他汀在降低颈动脉硬化方面有显著优越性。     

阿托伐他汀和瑞舒伐他汀用于急性脑梗死二级预防临床比较

目的:探讨阿托伐他汀和瑞舒伐他汀对于急性脑梗死二级预防近远期疗效及安全性的影响。方法:选取2015年2月～2016年12月收治的130例急性脑梗死二级预防患者,采用随机数字表法分为阿托伐他汀组和瑞舒伐他汀组,各65例。阿托伐他汀组在常规干预基础上加用阿托伐他汀治疗,瑞舒伐他汀组在常规干预基础上加用瑞舒伐他汀治疗,比较两组治疗前后三酰甘油、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白、血小板聚集率水平及复发率,不良反应发生率。结果:治疗后两组血脂指标三酰甘油、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白水平均较治疗前显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但治疗后组间比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。治疗后两组血小板聚集率均显著低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但治疗后组间比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。治疗后随访6个月及12个月,两组复发率比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。两组不良反应发生率比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。结论:阿托伐他汀和瑞舒伐他汀用于急性脑梗死二级预防在近远期疗效及安全性方面较为接近,且药物代谢方式不同并未影响血小板聚集率。     

急诊危重患者急性肾损伤发生的危险因素分析

目的:调查急诊抢救室患者急性肾损伤（acute kindey injury,AKI）的发生率并探讨相关危险因素。方法:采用回顾性队列研究方法,纳入2018年9~12月经由本院抢救室收治的患者,根据患者入院后7 d内是否发生AKI,将患者分为AKI组和非AKI组。收集患者入抢救室时的人口学特征、APACHE Ⅱ评分、是否使用肾脏毒性药物、24 h液体出入量及院内生存时间等相关指标。使用多因素Logistic回归分析AKI发生的危险因素。使用COX回归研究AKI的发生对患者住院生存率的影响,并分析AKI严重程度对患者死亡风险的影响。结果:纳入急诊抢救室的患者238例,其中108例发生AKI（45.4%）,AKI 1期83例（34.9%）,AKI 2~3期25例（10.5%）。APACHE Ⅱ评分>13分[ OR=1.11,95% CI（1.07~1.16）, P<0.01],应用血管活性药[ OR=2.20,95% CI（1.08~4.49）, P=0.03],糖尿病（ OR=2.33,95% CI（1.23~4.42）, P=0.01）,24 h入量>3 L（ OR=3.10,95% CI（1.17~8.25）, P=0.02）是发生AKI的独立危险因素。多因素COX回归校正APACHE Ⅱ评分和年龄后,AKI仍是急诊抢救室患者死亡的独立危险因素,且AKI严重程度显著增加急诊患者死亡风险[AKI1期 HR=1.45,95% CI（1.08~2.03）, P=0.04; AKI2-3期 HR=3.15,95% CI（1.49~4.81）, P=0.03]。 结论:急诊抢救室患者中AKI的发生较常见。APACHE Ⅱ评分>13分,应用血管活性药,糖尿病,24 h入量>3 L是发生AKI的独立危险因素。随着AKI严重程度的增加,死亡风险增加。     

急诊危重患者急性肾损伤发生的危险因素分析

目的:调查急诊抢救室患者急性肾损伤（acute kindey injury,AKI）的发生率并探讨相关危险因素。方法:采用回顾性队列研究方法,纳入2018年9~12月经由本院抢救室收治的患者,根据患者入院后7 d内是否发生AKI,将患者分为AKI组和非AKI组。收集患者入抢救室时的人口学特征、APACHE Ⅱ评分、是否使用肾脏毒性药物、24 h液体出入量及院内生存时间等相关指标。使用多因素Logistic回归分析AKI发生的危险因素。使用COX回归研究AKI的发生对患者住院生存率的影响,并分析AKI严重程度对患者死亡风险的影响。结果:纳入急诊抢救室的患者238例,其中108例发生AKI（45.4%）,AKI 1期83例（34.9%）,AKI 2~3期25例（10.5%）。APACHE Ⅱ评分>13分[ OR=1.11,95% CI（1.07~1.16）, P<0.01],应用血管活性药[ OR=2.20,95% CI（1.08~4.49）, P=0.03],糖尿病（ OR=2.33,95% CI（1.23~4.42）, P=0.01）,24 h入量>3 L（ OR=3.10,95% CI（1.17~8.25）, P=0.02）是发生AKI的独立危险因素。多因素COX回归校正APACHE Ⅱ评分和年龄后,AKI仍是急诊抢救室患者死亡的独立危险因素,且AKI严重程度显著增加急诊患者死亡风险[AKI1期 HR=1.45,95% CI（1.08~2.03）, P=0.04; AKI2-3期 HR=3.15,95% CI（1.49~4.81）, P=0.03]。 结论:急诊抢救室患者中AKI的发生较常见。APACHE Ⅱ评分>13分,应用血管活性药,糖尿病,24 h入量>3 L是发生AKI的独立危险因素。随着AKI严重程度的增加,死亡风险增加。     

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and LDL-C goal attainment among elderly patients treated with rosuvastatin compared with other statins in routine clinical practice

Background: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels lowers the risk of consequences of cardiovascular disease. Research has confirmed these benefits in elderly patients. The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors (ie, statins) have long-standing proven efficacy in reducing levels of LDL-C and total cholesterol.Objective: The goal of this study was to compare change in LDL-C from baseline and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III LDL-C goal attainment in a population of elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) treated with rosuvastatin versus other statins in routine clinical practice.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis using medical and pharmacy claims data linked to clinical laboratory results from a large managed care health plan of commercial and Medicare Advantage members in the United States. Included were members aged ≥65 years who were newly treated with statins (index date) from August 1, 2003, through February 28, 2005. All subjects were continuously enrolled for 12 months preindex and ≥30 days postindex, with variable follow-up until therapy discontinuation or end of health plan eligibility. Based on NCEP ATP III guidelines, patients were grouped into risk categories with associated LDL-C goals. The primary outcomes were change in LDL-C from baseline and attainment of NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal among patients not at goal before starting therapy. Generalized linear modeling was used to assess percent change in LDL-C from baseline, controlling for covariates (including age, sex, NCEP risk level, medication possession ratio, preindex LDL-C value, days from index date to postindex LDL-C value, and number of preindex office visits for dyslipidemia). In the subset of patients not at goal before starting therapy, logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of individual patients on other statins reaching goal as compared with rosuvastatin and to produce predicted percent attaining LDL-C goal on individual statins.Results: Of the 2227 elderly new users of statin therapy, 8.0% started on rosuvastatin, 38.9% started on atorvastatin, 3.0% on fluvastatin, 31.0% on lovastatin, 5.5% on pravastatin, and 13.6% on simvastatin. Females comprised 57.7% of the population, and the mean (SD) age was 73 (5.8) years (range, 65–94 years). The mean (SD) doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin were 10.65 (4.59), 16.0 (12.78), 66.31 (23.56), 27.38 (14.07), 32.86 (16.46), and 28.1 (26.2) mg, respectively. After controlling for covariates, rosuvastatin-treated patients had a 35.8% decrease in LDL-C from baseline, which was significantly greater compared with patients in the atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (29.3%, 21.9%, 22.5%, 22.0%, and 24.9%, respectively; P < 0.05) groups. Atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12–0.52), fluvastatin (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.14), lovastatin (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05–0.20), pravastatin (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03–0.20), and simvastatin (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06–0.30) were less likely to attain LDL-C goal compared with rosuvastatin (all, P < 0.001). Predicted percent attaining goal was 93.6% among rosuvastatin users, significantly greater than users of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (81.2%, 55.8%, 66.8%, 64.1%, and 72.8%, respectively; P < 0.05).Conclusion: In this elderly patient population, rosuvastatin was a more effective treatment for reducing LDL-C levels and attaining NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals than the other statins.     

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗前应用他汀类药物患者围手术期心肌损伤的meta分析

目的 客观评价经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)前他汀类药物治疗对围手术期心肌梗死、术后肌酸激酶同工酶(creatine kinase-MB,CK-MB)和肌钙蛋白(troponin)升高的影响.方法 检索PUBMED、EMCC、Highwire数据库及Cochrane图书馆等数据库.检索策略为:(percutaneous coronary intervention,OR PCI) AND (statin OR statins OR hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA) AND (randomized trial).入选试验满足条件:随机对照试验,PCI术前应用他汀类药物,试验组为服用他汀类药物的患者,对照组为服用安慰剂、未服用他汀类药物或者服用非大剂量他汀类药物的患者,以围手术期心肌梗死或者CK-MB、肌钙蛋白升高发生率为研究结局.采用比值比(OR)和95%可信区间(CI) 作为结果分析的统计量.应用RevMan 5.0以及SAS 9.2软件进行统计分析.结果 ①术前应用他汀类药物与未应用他汀类药物对比:与未应用他汀类药物比较,PCI术前应用他汀类药物治疗可以降低围手术期心肌梗死的发生率(OR=0.44,95%CI=0.34~0.57,P＜0.01),术后CK-MB升高的发生率(OR=0.50,95%CI=0.40~0.62,P＜0.01)以及肌钙蛋白升高的发生率(OR=0.65,95%CI=0.49~0.86,P<0.01).进一步分析发现:只有PCI术前应用大剂量他汀类药物才可以减少围手术期心肌梗死(OR=0.41,95%CI=0.30~0.55,P＜0.01),术后CK-MB升高(OR=0.43,95%CI=0.33~0.56,P＜0.01)以及肌钙蛋白升高的发生率(OR=0.57,95%CI=0.46~0.70,P＜0.01);而非大剂量他汀类药物不能降低围手术期心肌梗死(OR=0.58,95%CI=0.34~0.99,P=0.05)、术后CK-MB升高(OR=0.75,95%CI=0.49~1.14,P>0.05)以及肌钙蛋白升高的发生率(OR=0.91,95%CI=0.66~1.26,P>0.05).②术前应用大剂量他汀类药物与应用非大剂量他汀类药物对比:与应用非大剂量他汀类药物对比,PCI术前应用大剂量他汀可以降低围手术期心肌梗死的发生率(OR=0.40,95%CI=0.20~0.79,P<0.01),术后CK-MB升高的发生率(OR=0.46,95%CI=0.27~0.76,P<0.01)以及肌钙蛋白升高的发生率(OR=0.58,95%CI=0.38~0.88,P=0.01).结论 PCI术前只有给予大剂量的他汀类药物治疗才可以降低围手术期心肌梗死、以及术后CK-MB和肌钙蛋白升高的发生率.     

肾脏超声联合指标对非脓毒症危重患者急性肾损伤的预测价值

目的:探讨肾动脉阻力指数（renal resistive index,RRI）和肾能量多普勒超声（power Doppler ultrasound,PDU）半定量评分联合指标对入住重症监护室（intensive care unit,ICU）的非脓毒症患者发生急性肾损伤（acute kidney injury,AKI）的预测价值。方法:采用前瞻性观察性研究的方法,纳入2018年1月至2019年8月期间于沧州市中心医院急诊ICU住院的非脓毒症危重患者作为研究对象。记录一般资料;于入ICU 6 h内应用医学超声仪完成RRI和PDU半定量评分测量。入ICU第5天依据改善全球肾脏病预后组织（KDIGO）标准评估肾功能,按肾功能情况分为AKI 3期组（入ICU 5 d内进展为AKI 3期）和AKI 0~2期组（未发生AKI或发生AKI 1或2期）。分别在非脓毒症和急性心力衰竭患者中比较不同AKI分期两组间各指标的差异。计量资料两组间比较采用独立样本 t检验或Mann-Whiney秩和检验。计数资料两组间比较采用卡方检验。绘制受试者工作特征曲线（receiver operator characteristic,ROC）分析RRI、PDU评分、RRI-RDU/10、RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU对AKI 3期的预测价值。使用Delong检验方法比较每个预测因子之间ROC曲线下面积的差异。 结果:共纳入110例非脓毒症危重患者（无AKI 51例,AKI 1期21例,AKI 2期11例,AKI 3期27例）,其中急性心力衰竭患者63例（无AKI 21例,AKI 1期15例,AKI 2期7例,AKI 3期20例）。在非脓毒症患者及急性心力衰竭患者中,AKI 3期患者的急性生理学与慢性健康状况（APACHEⅡ）评分、序贯器官衰竭（sequential organ failure assessment,SOFA）评分、动脉乳酸水平、机械通气比例、血管活性药物比例、28 d病死率、肌酐、RRI、RRI-PDU/10、RRI/PDU、RRI+PDU及连续性肾脏替代治疗（continuous renal replacement therapy,CRRT）比例均明显高于AKI 0~2期患者（ P<0.05）;而尿量和PDU评分明显低于AKI 0~2期患者（ P<0.05）。非脓毒症患者中,RRI/PDU[曲线下面积(AUC)=0.915,95%可信区间( CI)：0.846~0.959, P<0.01）及RRI+PDU（AUC=0.914,95% CI：0.845~0.959, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值最高,且两者与RRI（AUC=0.804,95% CI：0.718~0.874, P<0.01）和PDU评分（AUC=0.868,95% CI：0.791~0.925, P<0.01）,差异均有统计学意义（均 P<0.05）;RRI/PDU预测AKI 3期的最佳临界值为0.355（灵敏度92.6%,特异度81.9%,约登指数0.745）;RRI-PDU/10（AUC=0.899,95% CI：0.827~0.948, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦优于RRI和PDU评分,但较RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU略差,仅RRI与RRI-PDU/10之间差异有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。在急性心力衰竭患者中,RRI/PDU（AUC=0.962,95% CI：0.880~0.994, P<0.01）及RRI+PDU（AUC=0.962,95% CI：0.880~0.994, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦最高,且两者与RRI（AUC=0.845,95% CI：0.731~0.924, P<0.01）和PDU评分（AUC=0.913,95% CI：0.814~0.969, P<0.01）两两间均差异有统计学意义（均 P<0.05）;RRI/PDU预测AKI 3期的最佳临界值为0.360（灵敏度95.0%,特异度90.7%,约登指数0.857）;RRI-PDU/10（AUC=0.950,95% CI:0.864~0.989, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦优于RRI和PDU评分,但较RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU略差,仅RRI与RRI-PDU/10之间差异有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。 结论:RRI和PDU评分的联合指标可有效预测非脓毒症患者发生AKI 3期,尤其在急性心力衰竭患者中表现更优。RRI与PDU评分的比值对AKI 3期的预测价值以及实用价值最好,建议临床推广应用。     

肾脏超声联合指标对非脓毒症危重患者急性肾损伤的预测价值

目的:探讨肾动脉阻力指数（renal resistive index,RRI）和肾能量多普勒超声（power Doppler ultrasound,PDU）半定量评分联合指标对入住重症监护室（intensive care unit,ICU）的非脓毒症患者发生急性肾损伤（acute kidney injury,AKI）的预测价值。方法:采用前瞻性观察性研究的方法,纳入2018年1月至2019年8月期间于沧州市中心医院急诊ICU住院的非脓毒症危重患者作为研究对象。记录一般资料;于入ICU 6 h内应用医学超声仪完成RRI和PDU半定量评分测量。入ICU第5天依据改善全球肾脏病预后组织（KDIGO）标准评估肾功能,按肾功能情况分为AKI 3期组（入ICU 5 d内进展为AKI 3期）和AKI 0~2期组（未发生AKI或发生AKI 1或2期）。分别在非脓毒症和急性心力衰竭患者中比较不同AKI分期两组间各指标的差异。计量资料两组间比较采用独立样本 t检验或Mann-Whiney秩和检验。计数资料两组间比较采用卡方检验。绘制受试者工作特征曲线（receiver operator characteristic,ROC）分析RRI、PDU评分、RRI-RDU/10、RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU对AKI 3期的预测价值。使用Delong检验方法比较每个预测因子之间ROC曲线下面积的差异。 结果:共纳入110例非脓毒症危重患者（无AKI 51例,AKI 1期21例,AKI 2期11例,AKI 3期27例）,其中急性心力衰竭患者63例（无AKI 21例,AKI 1期15例,AKI 2期7例,AKI 3期20例）。在非脓毒症患者及急性心力衰竭患者中,AKI 3期患者的急性生理学与慢性健康状况（APACHEⅡ）评分、序贯器官衰竭（sequential organ failure assessment,SOFA）评分、动脉乳酸水平、机械通气比例、血管活性药物比例、28 d病死率、肌酐、RRI、RRI-PDU/10、RRI/PDU、RRI+PDU及连续性肾脏替代治疗（continuous renal replacement therapy,CRRT）比例均明显高于AKI 0~2期患者（ P<0.05）;而尿量和PDU评分明显低于AKI 0~2期患者（ P<0.05）。非脓毒症患者中,RRI/PDU[曲线下面积(AUC)=0.915,95%可信区间( CI)：0.846~0.959, P<0.01）及RRI+PDU（AUC=0.914,95% CI：0.845~0.959, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值最高,且两者与RRI（AUC=0.804,95% CI：0.718~0.874, P<0.01）和PDU评分（AUC=0.868,95% CI：0.791~0.925, P<0.01）,差异均有统计学意义（均 P<0.05）;RRI/PDU预测AKI 3期的最佳临界值为0.355（灵敏度92.6%,特异度81.9%,约登指数0.745）;RRI-PDU/10（AUC=0.899,95% CI：0.827~0.948, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦优于RRI和PDU评分,但较RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU略差,仅RRI与RRI-PDU/10之间差异有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。在急性心力衰竭患者中,RRI/PDU（AUC=0.962,95% CI：0.880~0.994, P<0.01）及RRI+PDU（AUC=0.962,95% CI：0.880~0.994, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦最高,且两者与RRI（AUC=0.845,95% CI：0.731~0.924, P<0.01）和PDU评分（AUC=0.913,95% CI：0.814~0.969, P<0.01）两两间均差异有统计学意义（均 P<0.05）;RRI/PDU预测AKI 3期的最佳临界值为0.360（灵敏度95.0%,特异度90.7%,约登指数0.857）;RRI-PDU/10（AUC=0.950,95% CI:0.864~0.989, P<0.01）对AKI 3期的预测价值亦优于RRI和PDU评分,但较RRI/PDU和RRI+PDU略差,仅RRI与RRI-PDU/10之间差异有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。 结论:RRI和PDU评分的联合指标可有效预测非脓毒症患者发生AKI 3期,尤其在急性心力衰竭患者中表现更优。RRI与PDU评分的比值对AKI 3期的预测价值以及实用价值最好,建议临床推广应用。     

肾动脉阻力指数在高血压患者早期肾损害中的变化

目的了解高血压患者肾损害早期肾动脉阻力指数（resistive index，RI）的变化及其临床意义。方法选择原发性高血压患者168例，根据肾功能分为肾功能正常组61例、肾储备能力下降期组57例和氮质血症期组50例。对照组51例。用彩色多普勒超声仪测量肾动脉RI；检测血清尿素氮（BUN）、血清肌酐（Scr）、尿酸（UA）及内生肌酐清除率（Ccr）。结果氮质血症期患者各级肾动脉RI均明显高于对照组、高血压肾功能正常组和肾贮备能力下降期组（P〈0．05）；肾贮备能力下降期组肾段动脉和叶间动脉RI明显高于对照组（P〈0．05），而肾主动脉RI与对照组比较无统计学差异。高血压3级和高血压2级各级肾动脉RI与对照组比较均显著升高（P〈0．05）；高血压3级组的UA、Scr和Ccr与对照组比较，差异有统计学意义；高血压2级组的UA与对照组比较显著升高，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），但Ser和Ccr无统计学差异。结论肾动脉RI可作为评估高血压患者肾损害早期的敏感指标。     

Effects of perioperative rosuvastatin on postoperative delirium in elderly patients: A randomized,double-blind,and placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUNDExperimental evidence has indicated the benefits of statins for the treatment of postoperative delirium. Previously, clinical trials did not reach definite conclusions on the effects of statins on delirium. Some clinical trials have indicated that statins reduce postoperative delirium and improve outcomes, while some studies have reported negative results.AIMTo evaluate whether perioperative rosuvastatin treatment reduces the incidence of delirium and improves clinical outcomes.METHODSThis randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial was conducted in a single center in Jiangsu, China. This study enrolled patients aged greater than 60 years who received general anesthesia during elective operations and provided informed consent. A computer-generated randomization sequence (in a 1:1 ratio) was used to randomly assign patients to receive either rosuvastatin (40 mg/d) or placebo. Participants, care providers, and investigators were all masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium, which was assessed twice daily with the Confusion Assessment Method during the first 7 postoperative days. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat and safety populations.RESULTSBetween January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2020, 3512 patients were assessed. A total of 821 patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 411) or rosuvastatin (n = 410). The incidence of postoperative delirium was significantly lower in the rosuvastatin group [23 (5.6%) of 410 patients] than in the placebo group {42 (13.5%) of 411 patients [odds ratios (OR) = 0.522, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.308-0.885; P < 0.05]}. No significant difference in 30-d all-cause mortality (6.1% vs 8.7%, OR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.39-1.2, P = 0.147) was observed between the two groups. Rosuvastatin decreased the hospitalization time (13.8 ± 2.5 vs 14.2 ± 2.8, P = 0.03) and hospitalization expenses (9.3 ± 2.5 vs 9.8 ± 2.9, P = 0.007). No significant differences in abnormal liver enzymes (9.0% vs 7.1%, OR = 1.307, 95%CI: 0.787-2.169, P = 0.30) or rhabdomyolysis (0.73% vs 0.24%, OR = 3.020, 95%CI: 0.31-29.2, P = 0.37) were observed between the two groups.CONCLUSIONThe current study suggests that perioperative rosuvastatin treatment reduces the incidence of delirium after an elective operation under general anesthesia. However, the evidence does not reveal that rosuvastatin improves clinical outcomes. The therapy is safe. Further investigation is necessary to fully understand the potential usefulness of rosuvastatin in elderly patients.     

血清胱抑素C与肌酐在肾功能不同损害期患者中的应用比较

目的研究肾功能不同损害期患者血清胱抑素C（Scc）浓度变化及其与血清肌酐（Scr）和肌酐清除率（Ccr）的相关性，并对血清肌酐和胱抑素C在反映肾小球滤过率（GFR）中的应用作一比较。方法采用免疫比浊法测定125例患者SCC水平；采用Jaffe法测定SCr和Ccr，并进行相关分析。结果See与Scr呈高度正相关（r=0．783，P〈0．01），See与Cer呈高度负相关（r=-0．835，P〈0．01）；同时在肾功能损伤早期，See比Scr和Ccr更敏感，而且See与Ccr的相关性（r=-0．835）要好于Scr和Ccr的相关性（r=-0．615），两者有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论See是反映GFR的一项敏感指标。可以取代Sex和Ccr在临床上常规应用。     

Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on glucose metabolism and adipokine levels in non-diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia: a prospective randomised open-label study

Aims: The impact of statins on glucose metabolism and adipokines remains controversial. We compared the effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on glucose homeostasis, insulin sensitivity (IS), adiponectin and leptin levels as well as systemic inflammation in non‐diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia. Methods: Thirty‐six patients were randomly assigned to 10 mg/day of rosuvastatin (n = 18) or 20 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 18) for 12 weeks. Total cholesterol (TC), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C), non‐HDL‐C, triglycerides (TG), fasting plasma glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment‐insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR), quantitative IS check index (QUICKI), adiponectin, leptin and high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hsCRP) were measured at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks. Results: Both statins significantly lowered TC, LDL‐C, non‐HDL‐C and TG compared with baseline. Only rosuvastatin caused a significant reduction in insulin and HOMA‐IR levels (?35%, p = 0.005 and ?33%, p = 0.011 respectively) and a significant increase in QUICKI (+11%, p = 0.003) at 12 weeks. In terms of adipokines and hsCRP, no difference was observed after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment with either statin. Conclusions: Rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin resulted in significant improvements in IS indices. No significant changes in adiponectin, leptin or hsCRP levels were observed at 4 and 12 weeks of treatment with either statin.