不同血液净化方法对脓毒症性急性肾损伤的预后影响

目的 探讨运用急性肾损伤(acute kidney injury,AKI)的RIFLE(Risk,Injury,Failure,Loss,and End-stage kidnev disease)分层诊断标准和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分(APACHE)Ⅱ分析脓毒症性急性肾损伤采取不同血液净化方式对患者预后的影响.方法 回顾性分析2004年3月至2006年9月收住于天津市天和医院ICU的96例脓毒症性急性肾损伤的患者;纳人标准:2001年国际脓毒症定义会议的诊断标准和2004年急性肾损伤的RIFLE分层诊断标准.依据血液净化方式分为持续性肾脏替代治疗(continuous renal replacement therapy,CRRT)组(54例)和间歇性血液透析(intermittent hemodialysis,IHD)组(42例),CRRT组参照RIFLE标准分为Ⅰ期、Ⅱ期、Ⅲ期;临床资料采用Excel建立数据库,SPSS11.5医学统计软件包进行数据分析,评价患者进人ICU即刻、48 h、急性期末次血液净化结束后24 h的生命体征、实验室指标、APACHE Ⅱ评分动态变化和患者的不同预后.两组资料的比较采用成组t检验,治疗前后的比较采用配对t检验,率的比较采用χ2检验.结果 ①CRRT组与IHD组治疗前APACHE Ⅱ评分、血肌酐(Cr)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),病死率分别为51.9%和52.4%(P>0.05),肾功能恢复率分别为92.3%与65.0%(P<0.05);②CRRT组患者平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)和血氧饱和度(oxygen saturation,SpO2)较IHD组低(P<0.05),治疗后MAP、SpO2有所上升(P<0.05);③CRRT组中Ⅰ期患者存活率78.6%、治疗前APACHEⅡ评分(25.4±2.5)、肾功能恢复率90.9%,APACHE Ⅱ变化(-13.6±4.3);而Ⅲ期患者上诉指标分别为38.1%,(36.1±5.7).62.5%,(-7.1±4.2),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 RIFLE标准对AKI早期诊断和判断预后有指导意义,运用AKI的RIFLE标准结合APACHEⅡ评分选择治疗时机,早期采取CRRT能改善脓毒症性急性肾损伤患者的预后.

Effects of different blood purification on the prognosis of patients with acute septic kidney injury

Objective To evaluate the different methods of blood purification for acute septic renal injury (AKI) in respect of outcome by using RIFLE(risk,injury,failure,loss and end-stage renal disease)criteria and A-PACHE Ⅱ score. Method Data of 96 patients with ASRI admired to ICU of Tianhe Hospital, Tianjin, from March 2004 to September 2006 were analyzed. Including criteria: 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference and 2004 RIFLE criteria of AKI. The methods of blood purification used continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT, n=54) and imermittent hemodialysis (IHD, n=42).The patients of CRRT group could be classified into stages Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ referred to RIFLE criteria. Excel was evaluated to set up clinical data base from documented material. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 11. 5 software. Physical signs, laboratory findings, variation of APACHE Ⅱ score and outcomes of patients were documented evaluated. Data of two groups compared using indepent samples T test, before and after the treatment compared using paired-samples T test, rate compared using chi-square test. Results ①There were no statistical differences in APACHE Ⅱ score and creatinine (Cr) between CRRT group and IHD group before treatment (P>0.05). The mortalities of CRRT group and IHD group were 51.9％ and 52.4％, respectively (P>0.05), but the recovery rates of renal function in CRRT group and IHD group were 92.3％ and 65.0％ ,respectively (P< 0.05).②Mean arterial pressure (MAP),oxygen saturation (SpO2) of CRRT group were lower than those of IHD group (P<0.05) and they increased to some extent after treatment (P< 0.05). ③In the patients of stag Ⅰ ,the survival rate was 78.6％, APACHE Ⅱ score was 25.4± 2.5 before treatment, renal function recovery rate was 90.9％ ,and APACHE Ⅱ changed - 13.6 ± 4.3, while those relevant markers in the patients of stage Ⅲ were 38.1％, 36.1 ± 5.7,62.5 ％ and - 7.1 ± 4.2, respectively (P<0.05). Conclusions The RIFLE criteria has guiding significance for the early diagnosis and prognosis of ASRI,and the RIFLE and APACHE Ⅲ score may help to choose the optimum opportunity of treatment and the early CRRT as soon as possible after diagnosis can improve the outcome of patients with acute septic renal injury.