Effects of ulinastatin combined with glutamine on early hemodynamics in patients with severe burns
-
摘要:
目的 观察乌司他丁联合谷氨酰胺对严重烧伤患者早期血流动力学的影响。 方法 选择徐州医科大学附属淮海医院2016年1月—2018年12月收治的符合入选标准的32例严重烧伤患者,进行前瞻性随机对照试验。按照随机数字表法将患者分为常规治疗组(男4例、女4例)、乌司他丁组(男5例、女3例)、谷氨酰胺组(男5例、女3例)、乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组(男4例、女4例),其年龄依次为(36±8)、(34±8)、(35±9)、(38±13)岁。从伤后2 d开始,给予4组患者等氮、等热量的营养支持,其中蛋白质每日2.0 g/kg,乌司他丁组患者另每隔8小时静脉注射乌司他丁1次,每次100 kU,连续使用7 d;给予谷氨酰胺组患者的蛋白质中,0.3 g/kg由丙氨酸谷氨酰胺提供,连续使用7 d;乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者同时接受乌司他丁组和谷氨酰胺组的相应治疗。借助脉搏轮廓心输出量监测技术监测各组患者治疗1、3、7 d的心指数、每搏量指数(SVI)、全心舒张末期容积指数(GEDI)、全身血管阻力指数(SVRI)、血管外肺水指数(EVLWI)、肺血管通透性指数(PVPI)。数据处理采用Fisher确切概率法、单因素方差分析、重复测量方差分析、Bonferroni法。 结果 4组患者治疗1 d心指数均处于较低水平、SVI均低于正常值,组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(
P >0.05),随后均逐渐上升;治疗3、7 d,与常规治疗组比较,其余3组患者心指数、SVI均升高,其中乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者心指数、SVI显著升高(
P <0.05或
P <0.01)。治疗1 d,常规治疗组、乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组、乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者GEDI均处于正常低值水平,分别为(659±58)、(661±79)、(659±88)、(653±71)mL/m2,组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(
P >0.05),随后均逐渐上升;治疗3、7 d,与常规治疗组的(684±82)、(742±46)mL/m2比较,乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组、乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者GEDI均升高,分别为(732±53)、(777±33),(725±58)、(783±49),(813±65)、(849±27)mL/m2,其中乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者GEDI显著升高(
P <0.05)。4组患者治疗1 d SVRI均处于较高水平,组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(
P >0.05),随后均逐渐下降;治疗3、7 d,与常规治疗组比较,其余3组患者SVRI均升高,其中乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者SVRI显著升高(
P <0.05)。治疗1 d,常规治疗组、乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组、乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者EVLWI均处于正常范围,分别为(6.6±0.6)、(6.3±0.4)、(6.5±0.4)、(6.6±0.6)mL/kg,组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(
P >0.05),随后均呈上升趋势;治疗3、7 d,与常规治疗组的(7.1±0.9)、(7.9±0.5)mL/kg比较,乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组、乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者EVLWI均降低,分别为(6.2±0.6)、(7.1±0.4),(6.3±1.0)、(7.2±0.9),(5.8±0.7)、(6.7±0.6)mL/kg,其中乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者EVLWI显著降低(
P <0.05)。治疗1 d,4组患者PVPI均处于正常范围,组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(
P >0.05),随后均逐渐下降;治疗3、7 d,与常规治疗组比较,其余3组患者PVPI均降低,其中乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者PVPI显著降低(
P <0.05)。 结论 乌司他丁联合谷氨酰胺治疗严重烧伤患者,可通过提高心指数、SVI、GEDI、SVRI,降低EVLWI、PVPI,从而增加伤后早期心输出量,促进组织器官灌注,减轻肺水肿,显著改善严重烧伤患者早期的血流动力学。
Abstract:Objective To observe the effect of ulinastatin combined with glutamine on early hemodynamics in patients with severe burns. Methods Thirty-two patients with severe burns who met the inclusion criteria and hospitalized in the Affiliated Huaihai Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from January 2016 to December 2018 were selected for conducting a prospective randomized controlled trial. According to the random number table, the patients were divided into conventional treatment group (4 males and 4 females), ulinastatin group (5 males and 3 females), glutamine group (5 males and 3 females), and ulinastatin+ glutamine group (4 males and 4 females), with ages of (36±8), (34±8), (35±9), and (38±13) years in turn. From post injury day 2, patients in the 4 groups were given nutritional support of equal nitrogen and equal calories, of which protein was 2.0 g/kg daily. In addition, patients in the ulinastatin group received intravenous injection of 100 kU ulinastatin every 8 hours for 7 consecutive days; 0.3 g/kg of protein given to patients in the glutamine group was provided by alanine glutamine for 7 consecutive days; patients in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group received corresponding treatments of both ulinastatin group and glutamine group. With the help of pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring technology, the cardiac index, stroke volume index (SVI), global end-diastolic volume index (GEDI), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), extravascular lung water index (EVLWI), pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) of patients in each group were measured on treatment day (TD) 1, 3, and 7. Data were processed with Fisher′s exact probability method, one-way analysis of variance, analysis of variance for repeated measurement, and Bonferroni method. Results The cardiac index was low and the SVI value was lower than the normal value on TD 1 in patients of the 4 groups, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (
P >0.05), and then they were all gradually increased. On TD 3 and 7, compared with those of the conventional treatment group, the cardiac index and SVI of patients in the other three groups were all increased, and the cardiac index and SVI of patients in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group were significantly increased (
P <0.05 or
P <0.01). On TD 1, the GEDI of patients in the conventional treatment group, ulinastatin group, glutamine group, and ulinastatin+ glutamine group were at normal low levels, which were (659±58), (661±79), (659±88), and (653±71) mL/m2 respectively, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (
P >0.05), and then they all gradually increased. On TD 3 and 7, compared with (684±82) and (742±46) mL/m2 of the conventional treatment group, the GEDI of patients in the ulinastatin group, glutamine group, and ulinastatin+ glutamine group were all elevated, which were (732±53) and (777±33), (725±58) and (783±49), (813±65) and (849±27) mL/m2 respectively, and the GEDI of patients in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group was significantly increased (
P <0.05). The SVRI of patients in the four groups were all at high levels on TD 1, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (
P >0.05), and then they all gradually decreased. On TD 3 and 7, compared with those of the conventional treatment group, the SVRI of patients in the other three groups were all increased, and the SVRI in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group was significantly increased (
P <0.05). On TD 1, the EVLWI of patients in the conventional treatment group, ulinastatin group, glutamine group, and ulinastatin+ glutamine group were all in the normal range, which were (6.6±0.6), (6.3±0.4), (6.5±0.4), and (6.6±0.6) mL/kg respectively, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (
P >0.05), and then they all showed the increasing trend. On TD 3 and 7, compared with (7.1±0.9) and (7.9±0.5) mL/kg of the conventional treatment group, the EVLWI of patients in the ulinastatin group, glutamine group, and ulinastatin+ glutamine group were all decreased, which were (6.2±0.6) and (7.1±0.4), (6.3±1.0) and (7.2±0.9), (5.8±0.7) and (6.7±0.6) mL/kg respectively, and the EVLWI of patients in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group was significantly decreased (
P <0.05). On TD 1, the PVPI of patients in the four groups were all in the normal range, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (
P >0.05), and then they all gradually decreased. On TD 3 and 7, compared with those of the conventional treatment group, the PVPI of patients in the other three groups were all decreased, and the PVPI in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group was significantly decreased (
P <0.05). Conclusions Ulinastatin combined with glutamine can increase the cardiac index, SVI, GEDI, and SVRI and reduce the EVLWI and PVPI in treating patients with severe burns, thereby increasing early cardiac output after injury, promoting tissue and organ perfusion, and reducing pulmonary edema, resulting in significant improvement in early hemodynamics of patients with severe burns.
-
Key words:
- Burns /
- Glutamine /
- Hemodynamics /
- Ulinastatin
-
参考文献
(32)
计量
- 文章访问数: 86
- HTML全文浏览量: 14
- PDF下载量: 10
- 被引次数: 0