-
ICU中G+球菌是重症感染常见病原微生物之一[1],与病死率及病人预后密切相关[2]。临床上万古霉素常用于治疗G+球菌感染,疗效可靠。确诊G+球菌感染,需要通过培养结果获得,易受多种因素影响,需要2~3 d以上,容易延误重症病人使用抗生素,因此,难以满足指导抗生素选择的需求,对于重症感染的抗生素选择,临床上多根据痰液或各种分泌物性状、影像学资料等经验性抗G+球菌治疗,但经验性与非经验性治疗对疗效及预后的影响仍存在争议[3-4],我们通过以下研究,观察经验性和非经验性使用万古霉素抗G+球菌治疗对病人疗效、不良反应及预后的影响。现作报道。
-
共纳入60例病人,通过症状经验治疗的E组病人共39例,有病原学培养证据证实G+球菌感染的P组病人共21例,2组年龄等一般资料、实验室检查、GCS评分、APACHEⅡ评分、接受手术例数、机械通气情况、感染部位及抗生素使用种类差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 1)。
一般资料 E组(n=39) P组(n=21) uc P 年龄/岁 50.64±16.95 51.43±13.38 0.18* >0.05 性别(男) 29 15 0.06# >0.05 体质量/kg 62.0(55.0, 69.0) 70.0(58.5, 73.5) 1.70 >0.05 抗感染前体温/℃ 39.10(39.00, 39.50) 39.00(38.35, 39.40) 1.61 >0.05 抗感染前白细胞/(×109) 12.81(10.57, 20.15) 12.15(10.65, 17.90) 0.26 >0.05 抗感染前肌酐/(μmol/L) 62.00(49.00, 80.00) 73.00(56.00, 91.00) 1.32 >0.05 抗感染前尿素氮/(mmol/L) 6.50(4.49, 9.20) 7.08(4.66, 9.27) 0.35 >0.05 白蛋白/(g/L) 35.39±4.87 35.59±5.24 0.15* >0.05 GCS评分/分 7.00(5.00, 15.00) 10.50(5.25, 15.00) 0.98 >0.05 APACHEⅡ评分/分 20.21±5.65 18.71±7.04 0.90* >0.05 接受手术病人/例 31 17 0.02# >0.05 接受机械通气/例 30 17 0.013# >0.05 机械通气时间/h 143.00(71.00, 245.00) 72.00(35.50, 234.50) 1.26 >0.05 感染部位/例 颅内 18 10 0.01# >0.05 肺部 37 20 0.00# >0.05 腹腔 4 1 0.54# >0.05 血流 6 7 2.59# >0.05 合并使用抗生素/例 碳氢酶烯类 28 11 2.26# >0.05 β-内酰胺类 18 10 0.01# >0.05 喹诺酮 7 4 0.01# >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 1 一般资料比较
-
wE组和P组的谷浓度以及区间、72 h后白细胞和7 d感染控制方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但使用万古霉素72 h后的体温差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)(见表 2)。
分组 n 万古霉素谷浓度/(mcg/mL) 谷浓度区间例/(mcg/mL) 7 d临床感染
治愈/例使用72h后
体温/℃使用72 h后
白细胞/×1090~10 10~20 >20 E组 39 9.70(5.40, 19.80) 20 10 9 27 38.57±0.65 12.38(9.73, 16.86) P组 21 9.30(5.30, 16.00) 11 7 3 16 38.14±0.73* 11.13(8.00, 16.26) uc — 0.4 0.82# 0.33 2.34 0.62 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 0.022 >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 2 2组谷浓度和疗效的比较
-
E组和P组的肾功能及ICU住院时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但28d生存率差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)(见表 3)。
分组 n 停万古霉素
肌酐/(μmol/L)停万古霉素
尿素氮/(mmol/L)28 d生存
例数/例ICU住院
时间/dE组 39 51.00(38.50, 69.00) 6.71(3.86, 9.37) 14 16.00(10.00, 24.00) P组 21 62.00(52.50, 102.25) 5.13(3.99, 10.23) 2 18.00(11.00, 27.00) uc — 0.41 -0.08 4.86# 0.85 P — >0.05 >0.05 < 0.05 >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 3 2组预后指标比较
-
Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示,E组的生存率低于P组(P < 0.05)(见图 1)。
-
使用logistics多因素分析发现稳态谷浓度时尿素氮和病原学确诊G+球菌与病人预后有关(P < 0.05)(见图 2、表 4)。
影响因素 OR(95%CI) 校正OR(95%CI) P 万古霉素谷浓度 0.974(0.808~1.176) 0.766(0.111~5.309) >0.05 年龄 1.041(0.936~1.158) 1.874(0.354~9.915) >0.05 万古霉素谷浓度肌酐 0.930(0.848~1.020) 0.045(0.001~2.302) >0.05 万古霉素谷浓度尿素氮 3.960(1.170~13.400) 1.072(1.008~1.139) < 0.05 白蛋白 1, 155(0.869~1.534) 2.041(0.499~8.349) >0.05 是否手术 1.118(0.812~1.541) 1.663(0.388~7.126) >0.05 是否机械通气 0.914(0.672~1.244) 0.696(0.201~2.414) >0.05 培养证实球菌感染 0.941(0.887~0.998) 0.746(0.561~0.992) < 0.05 表 4 临床因素与死亡相关分析
重症G+球菌感染病人中经验性与非经验性使用万古霉素的疗效和预后分析
Efficacy and prognosis analysis of empirical and non-empirical use of vancomycin in patients with severe G+ cocci infection
-
摘要:
目的比较重症革兰阳性(G+)球菌感染病人经验性与非经验性使用万古霉素在治疗效果、血药浓度和预后之间是否有差异,分析影响病人死亡的临床相关因素。 方法根据有无确切病原学证据将病人治疗分组,无病原学证据,经验使用万古霉素设为E组;有确切病原学培养证据证实G+球菌感染使用万古霉素设为P组。比较2组谷血药浓度、7d抗感染治愈率、28 d生存率、肾功能等预后和疗效。使用logistic多因素回归分析病人死亡的临床相关因素。 结果共纳入60例重症感染病人,其中E组39例,P组21例,2组之间年龄、体质量、生化指标、病情轻重、谷浓度等差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但使用万古霉素72 h后的体温和28 d生存率差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。logistic多因素回归分析相关临床因素发现万古霉素谷浓度尿素氮和培养证实球菌感染与病人死亡相关。 结论和非经验使用万古霉素相比,经验性用药会降低病人28 d生存率,并影响病人抗感染疗效,而2组在血药浓度上并无差异。临床病人的肾功能尿素氮和培养证实球菌感染与病人不良预后及死亡相关,故建议确诊G+球菌感染后再使用万古霉素,并且注意监测病人肾功能情况。 Abstract:ObjectiveTo compare the therapeutic effects, blood drug concentration and prognosis between empirical and non-empirical use of vancomycin in patients with severe Gram-positive(G+) cocci infection, and analyze the clinical related factors of affecting patient death. MethodsAccording to the exact etiological evidence, the patients without etiological evidence were treated with vancomycin, and set as the group E; the patients with etiological evidence were treated with vancomycin, and set as the group P.The valley concentration, cure rate of 7 d anti-infection, 28 d survival rate, renal function and curative effects were compared between two groups.The clinical related factors of death in two groups were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. ResultsAmong 60 patients with severe infection, 39 cases in group E and 21 cases in group P were identified.There was no statistical significance in age, body mass, biochemical index, disease severity and valley concentration between two groups(P>0.05), but the differences of body temperature and 28 d survival rate between two groups after 72 h of tretament with vancomycin were statistically significant(P < 0.05).The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis of related clinical factors showed that the cocci infection was associated with patient death confirmed by ancomycin valley concentration, urea nitrogen and culture. ConclusionsCompared with the non-experimental use of vancomycin, the empirical use of vancomycin can decrease the 28 d survival rate, and affect the patient's anti-infection efficacy, while there is not difference in blood drug concentration between two groups.The clinical patient's kidney function, urea nitrogen and culture confirm that the cocci infection is related to the poor prognosis and death of patients, so it is recommended that vancomycin be administered after the diagnosis of G+ cocci infection, and that renal function should be monitored. -
Key words:
- severe infection /
- Gram-positive cocci /
- empirical medication /
- vancomycin /
- valley concentration /
- intensive care unit
-
表 1 一般资料比较
一般资料 E组(n=39) P组(n=21) uc P 年龄/岁 50.64±16.95 51.43±13.38 0.18* >0.05 性别(男) 29 15 0.06# >0.05 体质量/kg 62.0(55.0, 69.0) 70.0(58.5, 73.5) 1.70 >0.05 抗感染前体温/℃ 39.10(39.00, 39.50) 39.00(38.35, 39.40) 1.61 >0.05 抗感染前白细胞/(×109) 12.81(10.57, 20.15) 12.15(10.65, 17.90) 0.26 >0.05 抗感染前肌酐/(μmol/L) 62.00(49.00, 80.00) 73.00(56.00, 91.00) 1.32 >0.05 抗感染前尿素氮/(mmol/L) 6.50(4.49, 9.20) 7.08(4.66, 9.27) 0.35 >0.05 白蛋白/(g/L) 35.39±4.87 35.59±5.24 0.15* >0.05 GCS评分/分 7.00(5.00, 15.00) 10.50(5.25, 15.00) 0.98 >0.05 APACHEⅡ评分/分 20.21±5.65 18.71±7.04 0.90* >0.05 接受手术病人/例 31 17 0.02# >0.05 接受机械通气/例 30 17 0.013# >0.05 机械通气时间/h 143.00(71.00, 245.00) 72.00(35.50, 234.50) 1.26 >0.05 感染部位/例 颅内 18 10 0.01# >0.05 肺部 37 20 0.00# >0.05 腹腔 4 1 0.54# >0.05 血流 6 7 2.59# >0.05 合并使用抗生素/例 碳氢酶烯类 28 11 2.26# >0.05 β-内酰胺类 18 10 0.01# >0.05 喹诺酮 7 4 0.01# >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 2 2组谷浓度和疗效的比较
分组 n 万古霉素谷浓度/(mcg/mL) 谷浓度区间例/(mcg/mL) 7 d临床感染
治愈/例使用72h后
体温/℃使用72 h后
白细胞/×1090~10 10~20 >20 E组 39 9.70(5.40, 19.80) 20 10 9 27 38.57±0.65 12.38(9.73, 16.86) P组 21 9.30(5.30, 16.00) 11 7 3 16 38.14±0.73* 11.13(8.00, 16.26) uc — 0.4 0.82# 0.33 2.34 0.62 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 0.022 >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 3 2组预后指标比较
分组 n 停万古霉素
肌酐/(μmol/L)停万古霉素
尿素氮/(mmol/L)28 d生存
例数/例ICU住院
时间/dE组 39 51.00(38.50, 69.00) 6.71(3.86, 9.37) 14 16.00(10.00, 24.00) P组 21 62.00(52.50, 102.25) 5.13(3.99, 10.23) 2 18.00(11.00, 27.00) uc — 0.41 -0.08 4.86# 0.85 P — >0.05 >0.05 < 0.05 >0.05 *示t值;#示χ2值 表 4 临床因素与死亡相关分析
影响因素 OR(95%CI) 校正OR(95%CI) P 万古霉素谷浓度 0.974(0.808~1.176) 0.766(0.111~5.309) >0.05 年龄 1.041(0.936~1.158) 1.874(0.354~9.915) >0.05 万古霉素谷浓度肌酐 0.930(0.848~1.020) 0.045(0.001~2.302) >0.05 万古霉素谷浓度尿素氮 3.960(1.170~13.400) 1.072(1.008~1.139) < 0.05 白蛋白 1, 155(0.869~1.534) 2.041(0.499~8.349) >0.05 是否手术 1.118(0.812~1.541) 1.663(0.388~7.126) >0.05 是否机械通气 0.914(0.672~1.244) 0.696(0.201~2.414) >0.05 培养证实球菌感染 0.941(0.887~0.998) 0.746(0.561~0.992) < 0.05 -
[1] HASSOUN A, LINDEN PK, FRIEDMAN B.Incidence, prevalence, and management of MRSA bacteremia across patient populations-a review of recent developments in MRSA management and treatment[J].Crit Care, 2017, 21(1):211. [2] TIAN L, ZHANG Z, SUN Z.Antimicrobial resistance trends in bloodstream infections at a large teaching hospital in China:a 20-year surveillance study (1998-2017)[J].Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2019, 28(8):86. [3] SIGAKIS MJG, JEWELL E, MAILE MD, et al.Culture-negative and culture-positive sepsis:a comparison of characteristics and outcomes[J].Anesth Analg, 2019, 129(5):1300. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004072 [4] STRANIERI I, KANUNFRE KA, RODRIGUES JC, et al.Assessment and comparison of bacterial load levels determined by quantitative amplifications in blood culture-positive and negative neonatal sepsis[J].Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo, 2018, 60(10):e61. [5] PALING FP, TROEMAN DPR, WOLKEWITZ M, et al.Rationale and design of ASPIRE-ICU:a prospective cohort study on the incidence and predictors of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia in the ICU[J].BMC Infect Dis, 2017, 17(1):643. [6] YILMAZ M, ELALDI N, BALKANII, et al.Mortality predictors of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia:a prospective multicenter study[J].Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob, 2016, 15(9):7. [7] PETERSIEL N, BITTERMAN R, MANAA A, et al.β-lactam antibiotics vs.vancomycin for the early treatment of enterococcal bacteraemia:A retrospective cohort study[J].Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2019, 53(6):761. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.03.023 [8] AARTS MA, BRUN-BUISSON C, COOK DJ, et al.Antibiotic management of suspected nosocomial ICU-acquired infection:does prolonged empiric therapy improve outcome[J].Intensive Care Med, 2007, 33(8):1369. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0723-y [9] ZASOWSKI EJ, MURRAY KP, TRINH TD, et al.Identification of vancomycin exposure-toxicity thresholds in hospitalized patients receiving intravenous vancomycin[J].Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2018, 62(1):e01684. [10] FENG DY, ZHOU YQ, ZOU XL, et al.Factors influencing mortality in hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by Gram-negative bacteria in China[J].J Infect Public Health, 2019, 12(5):630. [11] ALVAREZ R, LOPEZ CORTES LE, MOLINA J, et al.Optimizing the clinical use of vancomycin[J].Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2016, 60(5):2601. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03147-14 [12] LIÑANA GRANELL C, BELLES MEDALL MD, FERRANDO PIQUERES R, et al.Vancomycin dose optimisation comparing a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model versus the pharmacokinetic model[J].Eur J Hosp Pharm, 2019, 26(1):16. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001222