切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华脑血管病杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (04) : 309 -316. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1673-9248.2024.04.003

论著

脑源性与非脑源性疾病所致应激性溃疡相关胃肠道出血的影响因素及临床预后差异:一项回顾性队列研究
黄镪1, 孙金梅1, 韩燕飞1, 张拥波1,()   
  1. 1. 100050 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-09 出版日期:2024-08-01
  • 通信作者: 张拥波
  • 基金资助:
    北京友谊医院科研启动基金资助项目(yyqdktgl2021-10)

Difference of influencing factors and clinical outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with stress ulcers between brain-derived and non-brain-derived disease: a retrospective cohort study

Qiang Huang1, Jinmei Sun1, Yanfei Han1, Yongbo Zhang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Neurology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
  • Received:2024-03-09 Published:2024-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Yongbo Zhang
引用本文:

黄镪, 孙金梅, 韩燕飞, 张拥波. 脑源性与非脑源性疾病所致应激性溃疡相关胃肠道出血的影响因素及临床预后差异:一项回顾性队列研究[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 309-316.

Qiang Huang, Jinmei Sun, Yanfei Han, Yongbo Zhang. Difference of influencing factors and clinical outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with stress ulcers between brain-derived and non-brain-derived disease: a retrospective cohort study[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(04): 309-316.

目的

探讨神经重症监护病房(NCU)脑源性疾病与普通重症监护病房(GICU)非脑源性疾病患者的应激性溃疡(SU)及临床有意义的应激性溃疡伴胃肠道出血(CIB)事件的危险因素及临床预后的差异。

方法

纳入2016年1月1日至2020年1月1日在首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院NCU及GICU连续性收治的SU患者,以CIB和30 d全因死亡事件为主要终点指标。采用Pearson χ2检验或Mann-Whitney U检验比较组间相应变量的差异,采用逻辑回归分析主要终点指标的影响因素。

结果

共纳入261例符合入组标准的SU患者(NCU组149例,GICU组112例),其中女性88例(33.7%),年龄为65(53,76)岁。SU患者中有136例(52.1%)发生CIB,NCU组和GICU组各有68例。相比GICU组,NCU组的SU患者年龄更大,高血压和既往有卒中病史的比例更高,但有冠心病史、有慢性胃病史、长期应用糖皮质激素或同等药物、有肝功能不全、有肾功能不全、有呼吸衰竭和有凝血功能障碍患者的比例更低,差异均具有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。类似地,与GICU组相比,NCU组CIB患者有卒中病史的比例更高,但有冠心病史、长期应用糖皮质激素或同等药物、有肾功能不全和有凝血功能障碍的患者比例更低,差异均具有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。NCU组SU患者30 d全因死亡率明显低于GICU组(16.2% vs 29.7%,χ2=6.748,P=0.009),但对应的2组CIB患者30 d全因死亡率差异无统计学意义(30.9% vs 41.8%,P>0.05)。逻辑回归分析结果提示30 d全因死亡的独立影响因素包括:长期应用糖皮质激素或同等药物[比值比(OR)=2.439,95%可信区间(CI):1.131~5.259]、有输血治疗(OR=3.329,95%CI:1.558~7.112)、有呼吸衰竭(OR=3.405,95%CI:1.61~7.198)和有CIB(OR=3.793,95%CI:1.529~9.414)。而应用鼻胃管(OR=5.209,95%CI:2.820~9.620)、有呼吸衰竭(OR=3.672,95%CI:1.620~8.325)和国际标准化比值>1.5(OR=2.119,95%CI:1.023~4.389)与CIB发生风险增加显著相关,应用质子泵抑制剂进行预防性治疗(OR=0.277,95%CI:0.100~0.768)有助于降低CIB的发生风险。

结论

NCU组(脑源性)和GICU组(非脑源性)CIB患者中未发现危险因素及30 d全因死亡率的显著性差异。应用鼻胃管、有呼吸衰竭和国际标准化比值>1.5与CIB发生风险的增加显著相关,而质子泵抑制剂预防性治疗很可能有助于降低2组患者的CIB风险。

Objective

To evaluate the differences in risk factors and outcomes of stress ulcer (SU) and clinically important stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) between patients from the neurocritical care unit (NCU) and those from the general intensive care unit (GICU).

Methods

The study included consecutive SU patients admitted to Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2020. CIB and all-cause death at 30 d were chosen as primary endpoints. The Pearson Chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the differences of corresponding variables between groups, and multiple logistic regression models were performed to identify the risk factors of each primary endpoint event.

Results

A total of 261 eligible SU patients (149 from the NCU group and 112 from the GICU group) were enrolled, with 88 (33.7%) women and a median age of 65 years (range 53 to 76). CIB was experienced by 136 SU patients (52.1%), with 68 cases in each group. Compared with the SU patients from the GICU, those from the NCU were older and had a higher proportion of hypertension and previous stroke (all P<0.05), but a lower rate of coronary heart disease, previous peptic ulcer disease, administration of glucocorticoids or the equivalent, hepatic failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, and coagulopathy (all P<0.05). Similarly, the CIB patients from the NCU group had a higher rate of previous stroke, but a lower rate of coronary heart disease, administration of glucocorticoids or the equivalent, renal failure, and coagulopathy, compared with those from the GICU group (all P < 0.05). A significantly lower mortality at 30 d was observed in SU patients from the NCU group than those from the GICU group (16.2% vs 29.7%, χ2=6.748, P=0.009), while there was no significant difference for all-cause death at 30d of CIB patients between the NCU group and the GICU group (30.9% vs 41.8%, P>0.05). Four independent risk factors of all-cause death at 30d, including administration of glucocorticoids or the equivalent, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.439 and 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.131-5.259, blood transfusion (OR=3.329, 95%CI: 1.558-7.112), respiratory failure (OR=3.405, 95%CI: 1.610-7.198), and CIB (OR=3.793, 95%CI: 1.529-9.414) were identified in the binary logistic regression modal. The use of a nasogastric tube (OR=5.209, 95%CI: 2.820-9.620), respiratory failure (OR=3.672, 95%CI: 1.620-8.325), and international standardized ratio>1.5 (OR=2.119, 95%CI: 1.023-4.389) was associated with a greater risk of CIB, while SU prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (OR=0.277, 95%CI: 0.100-0.768) served as the only protective factor for CIB.

Conclusion

CIB is a common and serious complication in critically ill patients. No significant differences in risk factors and all-cause death at 30d were found between CIB associated brain-derived diseases and those with non-brain-derived diseases. Nasogastric tube use, respiratory failure, and INR>1.5 were significantly associated with an increased risk of CIB. Prophylactic therapy with PPI was likely to help reduce the risk of CIB in both groups.

表1 2组SU患者的基线临床资料及相关变量比较结果
项目 NCU组SU患者(n=149) GICU组SU患者(n=112) 统计值 P
年龄[岁,MQR)] 66(58,76) 61(48,77) Z=-2.193 0.028
女性[例(%)] 45(30.2) 43(38.4) χ2=1.920 0.166
病史[例(%)]
高血压 98(65.8) 58(51.8) χ2=5.201 0.023
糖尿病 47(31.5) 39(34.8) χ2=0.311 0.577
高脂血症 60(40.3) 43(38.4) χ2=0.094 0.759
冠心病 29(19.5) 35(31.3) χ2=4.800 0.028
心房颤动 25(16.8) 15(13.4) χ2=0.565 0.452
既往卒中 44(29.5) 16(14.3) χ2=8.393 0.004
慢性胃病 16(10.7) 25(22.3) χ2=6.749 0.011
应用糖皮质激素或同等药物[例(%)] 27(18.1) 40(35.7) χ2=10.372 0.001
吸烟[例(%)] 60(40.3) 44(39.3) χ2=0.026 0.872
大量饮酒[例(%)] 42(28.2) 25(22.3) χ2=1.153 0.283
住院时间[d,MQR)] 14(12,17) 14(10,25) Z=-0.454 0.650
SU首发症状与临床诊断之间的时间间隔[d,MQR)] 1(1,4) 2(1,6) Z=-1.804 0.071
凝血功能障碍相关指标[例(%)]
血小板计数<50000/cm3 7(4.7) 32(28.6) χ2=28.672 <0.001
国际标准化比值>1.5 17(11.4) 53(47.3) χ2=42.014 <0.001
APTT>2倍参考值 12(8.1) 45(40.2) χ2=38.657 <0.001
血糖指标[MQR)]
空腹血糖(mmol/L) 6.4(5.2,9.5) 6.5(5.3,9.6) Z=-0.080 0.937
糖化血红蛋白(%) 6.0(5.4,7.4) 6.0(5.4,6.8) Z=-0.435 0.663
糖化白蛋白(%) 15.1(13.1,19.0) 15.4(13.1,17.8) Z=-1.195 0.232
肝功能不全[例(%)] 1(0.7) 8(7.1) χ2=6.217 0.013
肾功能不全[例(%)] 7(4.7) 28(25.0) χ2=22.696 <0.001
应用鼻胃管[例(%)] 78(52.3) 61(54.5) χ2=0.115 0.735
呼吸衰竭[例(%)] 32(21.5) 41(36.6) χ2=7.266 0.007
肺部感染[例(%)] 32(21.5) 41(36.6) χ2=7.266 0.007
SU的预防性治疗[例(%)] 19(12.8) 23(20.5) χ2=2.869 0.090
表2 2组CIB患者基线临床资料及相关变量的比较结果
项目 NCU组CIB患者(n=68) GICU组CIB患者(n=68) 统计值 P
年龄[岁,MQR)] 67(59,75) 64(52,77) Z=-0.607 0.544
女性[例(%)] 22(32.4) 21(30.9) χ2=0.034 0.854
病史[例(%)]
高血压 46(67.6) 38(55.9) χ2=1.993 0.158
糖尿病 23(33.8) 25(36.8) χ2=0.129 0.720
高脂血症 23(33.8) 24(35.3) χ2=0.033 0.857
冠心病 13(19.1) 25(36.8) χ2=5.259 0.022
心房颤动 14(20.6) 11(16.2) χ2=0.441 0.507
既往卒中 24(35.3) 9(13.2) χ2=9.003 0.003
慢性胃病 9(13.2) 16(23.5) χ2=2.401 0.121
应用糖皮质激素或同等药物[例(%)] 13(19.1) 25(36.8) χ2=5.259 0.022
吸烟[例(%)] 25(36.8) 34(50.0) χ2=2.425 0.119
大量饮酒[例(%)] 17(25.0) 19(27.9) χ2=0.151 0.697
住院时间[d,MQR)] 14(11,19) 16(10,31) Z=-1.026 0.305
SU首发症状与临床诊断之间的时间间隔[d,MQR)] 2(1,5) 2(1,6) Z=-0.588 0.556
凝血功能障碍相关指标[例(%)]
血小板计数<50000 cm3 4(5.9) 22(32.4) χ2=15.407 <0.001
国际标准化比值>1.5 14(20.6) 39(57.4) χ2=19.323 <0.001
APTT>2倍参考值 9(13.2) 34(50.0) χ2=21.255 <0.001
血糖指标[MQR)]
空腹血糖(mmol/L) 8.2(5.7,10.9) 7.3(5.4,9.6) χ2=-1.221 0.222
糖化血红蛋白(%) 6.2(5.5,7.9) 6.0(5.4,6.8) Z=-1.168 0.243
糖化白蛋白(%) 16.4(14.0,19.6) 15.5(13.0,18.0) Z=-1.777 0.076
肝功能不全[例(%)] 1(1.5) 6(8.8) χ2=3.765 0.052
肾功能不全[例(%)] 4(5.9) 23(33.8) χ2=16.682 <0.001
应用鼻胃管[例(%)] 54(79.4) 51(75.0) χ2=0.376 0.540
呼吸衰竭[例(%)] 26(38.2) 37(54.4) χ2=3.578 0.059
肺部感染[例(%)] 46(67.6) 36(52.9) χ2=3.071 0.080
SU的预防性治疗[例(%)] 6(8.8) 10(14.7) χ2=1.133 0.287
表3 2组SU患者的临床终点指标比较
图1 应激性溃疡患者30 d全因死亡的影响因素
图2 临床有意义的应激性消化道溃疡伴出血事件的影响因素
1
Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group [J]. N Engl J Med, 1994, 330(6): 377-381.
2
Cook DJ, Griffith LE, Walter SD, et al. The attributable mortality and length of intensive care unit stay of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients [J]. Crit Care, 2001, 5(6): 368-375.
3
Shalev A, Zahger D, Novack V, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes [J]. Int J Cardiol, 2012, 157(3): 386-390.
4
Krag M, Marker S, Perner A, et al. Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU [J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(23): 2199-2208.
5
Ray A, Gulati K, Henke P. Stress gastric ulcers and cytoprotective strategies: perspectives and trends [J]. Curr Pharm Des, 2020, 26(25): 2982-2990.
6
Barletta JF, Mangram AJ, Sucher JF, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in neurocritical care [J]. Neurocrit Care, 2018, 29(3): 344-357.
7
黄镪, 孙金梅, 韩燕飞, 等. 急性卒中后临床上重要的应激相关性胃肠道出血的预测因素及其对近期转归的影响 [J]. 国际脑血管病杂志, 2021, 29(8): 576-582.
8
Albeiruti R, Chaudhary F, Alqahtani F, et al. Incidence, Predictors, and outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarction [J]. Am J Cardiol, 2019, 124(3): 343-348.
9
Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Anand SS, et al. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes [J]. Circulation, 2006, 114(8): 774-782.
10
Wang TY, Xiao L, Alexander KP, et al. Antiplatelet therapy use after discharge among acute myocardial infarction patients with in-hospital bleeding [J]. Circulation, 2008, 118(21): 2139-2145.
11
Du W, Zhao X, Wang Y, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding during acute ischaemic stroke hospitalisation increases the risk of stroke recurrence [J]. Stroke Vasc Neurol, 2020, 5(2): 116-120.
12
Marker S, Barbateskovic M, Perner A, et al. Prophylactic use of acid suppressants in adult acutely ill hospitalised patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis [J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2020, 64(6): 714-728.
13
Wang Y, Ye Z, Ge L, et al. Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis [J]. BMJ, 2020, 368: l6744.
14
Toews I, George AT, Peter JV, et al. Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, 6: D8687.
15
刘永辉, 曾佩佩, 高玉广. 奥美拉唑预防卒中后应激性溃疡出血疗效的Meta分析 [J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2018, 13(6): 573-578.
16
Young PJ, Bagshaw SM, Forbes AB, et al. Effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers on in-hospital mortality among ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation: the PEPTIC randomized clinical trial [J]. JAMA, 2020, 323(7): 616-626.
17
Xing XX, Zhu C, Chu YQ, et al. Physicians' knowledge, attitude, and prescribing behavior regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in China: a multi-center study [J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2021, 21(1): 402.
18
Mekhail A, Young P, Mekhail AM, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study to analyze the effects of SUP cessation [J]. J Intensive Care Med, 2023, 38(10): 917-921.
19
Huang HB, Jiang W, Wang CY, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Crit Care, 2018, 22(1): 20.
20
Howell MD, Novack V, Grgurich P, et al. Iatrogenic gastric acid suppression and the risk of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection [J]. Arch Intern Med, 2010, 170(9): 784-790.
21
Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries [J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2015, 59(5): 576-585.
22
Singh A, Bodukam V, Saigal K, et al. Identifying risk factors associated with inappropriate use of acid suppressive therapy at a community hospital [J]. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2016, 2016: 1973086.
[1] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[2] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[3] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[4] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[5] 李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[6] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[7] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[8] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[9] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[10] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[11] 刘柏隆, 周祥福. 女性尿失禁吊带手术并发症处理的经验分享[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 127-127.
[12] 关小玲, 周文营, 陈洪平. PTAAR在乙肝相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者短期预后中的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 841-845.
[13] 王景明, 王磊, 许小多, 邢文强, 张兆岩, 黄伟敏. 腰椎椎旁肌的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 846-852.
[14] 颜世锐, 熊辉. 感染性心内膜炎合并急性肾损伤患者的危险因素探索及死亡风险预测[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
[15] 郭曌蓉, 王歆光, 刘毅强, 何英剑, 王立泽, 杨飏, 汪星, 曹威, 谷重山, 范铁, 李金锋, 范照青. 不同亚型乳腺叶状肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 524-532.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?