目的探讨重症监护室(ICU)医务人员采用1小时集束化治疗策略(1 h bundle)救治脓毒症的执行情况,并分析脓毒症/感染性休克患者28 d预后影响因素.方法选择2019年6月-2022年7月新疆医科大学第一附属医院重症监护病房(ICU)、急诊重症监护病房...目的探讨重症监护室(ICU)医务人员采用1小时集束化治疗策略(1 h bundle)救治脓毒症的执行情况,并分析脓毒症/感染性休克患者28 d预后影响因素.方法选择2019年6月-2022年7月新疆医科大学第一附属医院重症监护病房(ICU)、急诊重症监护病房(EICU)、呼吸重症监护病房(RICU)内符合脓毒症3.0定义与诊断标准患者,根据28 d预后情况分为生存组100例与死亡组91例,收集病原菌与感染部位、1 h bundle执行情况和28 d预后结局等资料;分析影响预后的危险因素并绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,进一步评估不同指标对脓毒症/感染性休克患者的预测价值.结果191例脓毒症/感染性休克患者共培养分离病原菌295株,其中革兰阴性菌212株占71.86%,革兰阳性菌50株占16.95%,真菌32株占10.85%;感染部位以肺部、腹腔和皮肤软组织为主;1 h bundle策略总体达标率为9.95%,两组达标率差异无统计学意义;28 d病死率为47.64%;年龄(AUC=0.620)、脓毒症相关序贯器官衰竭评分(SOFA)(AUC=0.730)、急性生理与慢性健康Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分(AUC=0.662)、6 h乳酸(AUC=0.590)、24 h乳酸(AUC=0.681)是脓毒症/感染性休克患者28 d预后影响因素;ROC曲线结果显示,年龄、SOFA评分、APACHEⅡ评分、6 h乳酸、24 h乳酸对患者预后情况均有一定预测价值(P<0.05).结论本地区ICU内1 hbundle策略达标率不理想,应探寻行之有效策略提高对于循证指南执行率,进而有效降低脓毒症造成的威胁.展开更多
The main pathophysiological feature of sepsis is the uncontrollable activation of both pro-and anti-inflammatory responses arising from the overwhelming pro-duction of mediators such as pro-and anti-inflammatory cytok...The main pathophysiological feature of sepsis is the uncontrollable activation of both pro-and anti-inflammatory responses arising from the overwhelming pro-duction of mediators such as pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Such an uncontrollable inflammatory response would cause many kinds of metabolic derangements. One such metabolic derangement is hyperglycemia. Accordingly, control of hyperglycemia in sepsis is considered to be a very effective therapeutic approach. However, despite the initial enthusiasm, recent studies reported that tight glycemic control with intensive insulin therapy failed to show a beneficial effect on mortality of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. One of the main reasons for this disappointing result is the incidence of harmful hypoglycemia during intensive insulin therapy. Therefore, avoidance of hypoglycemia during intensive insulin therapy may be a key issue in effective tight glycemic control. It is generally accepted that glycemic control aimed at a blood glucose level of 80-100 mg/dL, as initially proposed by van den Berghe, seems to be too tight and that such a level of tight glycemic control puts septic patients at increased risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, now many researchers suggest less strict glycemic control with a target blood glucose level of 140-180 mg/dL. Also specific targeting of glycemic control in diabetic patients should be considered. Since there is a significantcorrelation between success rate of glycemic control and the degree of hypercytokinemia in septic patients, some countermeasures to hypercytokinemia may be an important aspect of successful glycemic control. Thus, in future, use of an artificial pancreas to avoid hypoglycemia during insulin therapy, special consideration of septic diabetic patients, and control of hypercytokinemia should be considered for more effective glycemic control in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.展开更多
文摘The main pathophysiological feature of sepsis is the uncontrollable activation of both pro-and anti-inflammatory responses arising from the overwhelming pro-duction of mediators such as pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Such an uncontrollable inflammatory response would cause many kinds of metabolic derangements. One such metabolic derangement is hyperglycemia. Accordingly, control of hyperglycemia in sepsis is considered to be a very effective therapeutic approach. However, despite the initial enthusiasm, recent studies reported that tight glycemic control with intensive insulin therapy failed to show a beneficial effect on mortality of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. One of the main reasons for this disappointing result is the incidence of harmful hypoglycemia during intensive insulin therapy. Therefore, avoidance of hypoglycemia during intensive insulin therapy may be a key issue in effective tight glycemic control. It is generally accepted that glycemic control aimed at a blood glucose level of 80-100 mg/dL, as initially proposed by van den Berghe, seems to be too tight and that such a level of tight glycemic control puts septic patients at increased risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, now many researchers suggest less strict glycemic control with a target blood glucose level of 140-180 mg/dL. Also specific targeting of glycemic control in diabetic patients should be considered. Since there is a significantcorrelation between success rate of glycemic control and the degree of hypercytokinemia in septic patients, some countermeasures to hypercytokinemia may be an important aspect of successful glycemic control. Thus, in future, use of an artificial pancreas to avoid hypoglycemia during insulin therapy, special consideration of septic diabetic patients, and control of hypercytokinemia should be considered for more effective glycemic control in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
