基于腹腔感染分区的复杂腹腔感染患者临床特征及预后影响因素分析

Clinical characteristics and prognosis analysis of patients with complicated intra‑abdominal infections based on intra‑abdominal infection zones

  • 摘要:
    探讨基于腹腔感染分区的复杂腹腔感染患者临床特征及预后影响因素。
    采用回顾性病例对照研究方法。收集2021年1月至2024年12月西安交通大学第一附属医院收治的372例复杂腹腔感染患者的临床资料;男204例,女168例;年龄为(57±10)岁。372例患者中,72例为不含D区的单分区感染、165例为不含D区的多分区感染(分区数≥3个)、135例为含D区的多分区感染(分区数≥3个)。观察指标:(1)不同分区复杂腹腔感染患者临床特征比较。(2)不同分区复杂腹腔感染患者治疗及预后情况。(3)复杂腹腔感染患者预后影响因素分析。正态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用单因素方差分析,两两比较采用事后LSD检验;偏态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用Kruskal‑Wallis H检验,两两比较采用Bonferroni法。计数资料组间比较采用χ²检验或Fisher确切概率法,两两比较采用Bonferroni法。单因素和多因素分析采用Logistic回归模型。
    (1)不同分区复杂腹腔感染患者临床特征比较。不含D区的单分区感染、不含D区的多分区感染、含D区的多分区感染患者急性生理与慢性健康评估Ⅱ(APACHE Ⅱ)评分分别为(12±4)分、(17±6)分、(20±5)分;降钙素原水平分别为(9.9±2.8)ng/mL、(17.3±5.1)ng/mL、(13.4±4.9)ng/mL;住院来源为社区,其他医疗机构,本院手术相关分别为41、8、0例,19、86、99例,12、71、36例;感染源分类为器官脓肿,胆管炎,肠缺血坏死,胰腺坏死感染,吻合口瘘分别为28、9、0例,17、6、0例,13、7、8例,0、32、94例,5、88、18例;病原微生物为真菌,碳青霉烯耐药革兰氏阴性杆菌分别为4、19、24例,4、41、40例;3者上述指标比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。进一步两两比较结果显示:与不含D区的单分区感染、不含D区的多分区感染比较,含D区的多分区感染患者住院来源为其他医疗机构比例更高,感染源为器官脓肿、胆管炎比例均更低,感染源为胰腺坏死感染比例更高(P均<0.05)。(2)不同分区复杂腹腔感染患者治疗及预后情况。不含D区的单分区感染、不含D区的多分区感染、含D区的多分区感染患者治疗方式为保守治疗,经皮引流,外科手术分别为23、0、0例,44、114、123例,5、38、56例,手术次数≥2次分别为0、13、37例,并发症为脓毒性休克,腹腔出血,消化道瘘分别为4、63、58例,3、15、27例,0、22、31例,重症监护室入住时间分别为(9.7±2.5)d、(16.3±6.5)d、(23.8±9.7)d,住院28 d死亡分别为1、15、24例;3者上述指标比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。进一步两两比较结果显示:与不含D区的单分区感染、不含D区的多分区感染比较,含D区的多分区感染患者行经皮引流治疗、外科手术比例均更高,手术次数≥2次比例更高,并发症腹腔出血、消化道瘘比例均更高,重症监护室入住时间更长(P均<0.05)。(3)复杂腹腔感染患者预后影响因素分析。多因素分析结果显示:APACHE Ⅱ评分≥15分、病原微生物为耐碳青霉烯革兰氏阴性杆菌、手术次数≥2次、脓毒性休克是影响复杂腹腔感染患者住院28 d死亡的独立危险因素(优势比=2.15,2.68,2.32,3.08,95%可信区间为1.03~4.50,1.28~5.64,1.09~4.96,1.39~6.82,P<0.05)。
    与不含D区的单分区感染、不含D区的多分区感染比较,含D区的多分区感染患者感染源为胰腺坏死感染,行经皮引流、外科手术、手术次数≥2次,并发症腹腔出血、消化道瘘比例均更高,重症监护室入住时间更长。APACHE Ⅱ评分≥15分、病原微生物为耐碳青霉烯革兰氏阴性杆菌、手术次数≥2次、脓毒性休克是影响复杂腹腔感染患者住院28 d死亡的独立危险因素。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To explore the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with complicated intra‑abdominal infections based on intra‑abdominal infection zones.
    Methods The retrospective case‑control study was conducted. The clinical data of 372 patients with complica-ted intra‑abdominal infections who were admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi′an Jiaotong University from January 2021 to December 2024 were collected. There were 204 males and 168 females, aged (57±10)years. Among the 372 patients, 72 patients had single‑zone infection without zone D, 165 patients had multi‑zone infections without zone D (≥3 zones), and 135 patients had multi‑zone infections with zone D (≥3 zones). Observation indicators: (1) comparison of clinical characteristics among patients with different complicated intra‑abdominal infection zones; (2) treatment and prognosis for patients with different complicated intra‑abdominal infection zones; (3) analysis of prognostic factors in patients with complicated intra‑abdominal infections. Comparison of measure-ment data with normal distribution among multiple groups was conducted using the one‑way analysis of variance and pairwise comparison between groups was conducted using the post-hoc LSD test. Comparison of measurement data with skewed distribution among multiple groups was conducted using the Kruskal‑Wallis H test and pairwise comparison between groups was conducted using the Bonferroni method. Comparison of count data was conducted using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability and pairwise comparison between groups was conducted using the Bonferroni method. The Logistic regression model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses.
    Results (1) Comparison of clinical characteristics among patients with different complicated intra-abdominal infection zones. For patients had single‑zone infection without zone D, multi-zone infec-tions without zone D, and multi‑zone infections with zone D, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) scores were 12±4, 17±6,20±5, respectively, the procalcitonin levels were (9.9±2.8)ng/mL, (17.3±5.1)ng/mL, (13.4±4.9)ng/mL, cases from community were 41, 8, and 0, cases from other medical institutions were 19, 86, and 99, and cases from this hospital related to surgery were 12, 71, and 36. Cases with infection of organ abscess were 28, 9, 0, cases with cholangitis were 17, 6, 0, cases with intestinal ischemia and necrosis were 13, 7, 8, cases with pancreatic necrosis infection were 0, 32, 94, cases with anastomotic fistula were 5, 88, 18, cases with pathogenic micro-organism as fungus were 4, 19, 24, cases with pathogenic microorganism as carbapenem-resistant Gram‑negative bacilli were 4, 41, 40. There were significant differences in the above indicators among the three groups of patients (P<0.05). Results of further pairwise comparison showed that compared to patients with single-zone or multi-zone infections without zone D, patients with multi-zone infections with zone D had higher proportion of cases from other medical institutions, lower proportions of cases with infection of organ abscess and cholangitis, and higher proportion of cases with pancreatic necrosis infection (P<0.05). (2) Treatment and prognosis among patients with different complicated intra‑abdominal infection zones. For patients had single‑zone infection without zone D, multi‑zone infections without zone D, and multi‑zone infections with zone D, cases receiving conser-vative treatment were 23, 0, 0, cases receiving percutaneous drainage were 44, 14, 123, cases receiving surgical treatment were 5, 38, 56, cases receiving surgical treatment≥2 times were 0, 13, 37, cases with complications as septic shock were 4, 63, 58, cases with intra‑abdominal hemorrhage were 3, 15, 27, cases with digestive tract fistula were 0, 22, 31, duration of intensive care unit stay (ICU) were (9.7±2.5)days, (16.3±6.5)days, (23.8±9.7)days, the number of patients who died within 28 days of hospitalization were 1, 15, 24. There were significant differences in the above indicators among the three groups of patients (P<0.05). Results of further pairwise comparison showed that compared to patients with single-zone or multi-zone infections without zone D, patients with multi-zone infections with zone D had higher proportions of percutaneous drainage, surgical treatment, surgical treatment ≥2 times, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and digestive tract fistula, a longer duration of ICU (P<0.05). (3) Analysis of prognostic factors for patients with complicated intra‑abdominal infections. Results of multivariate analysis showed that APACHE Ⅱ score ≥15, pathogenic micro-organism as the carba-penem-resistant Gram‑negative bacilli, surgical treatment ≥2 times and septic shock were independent risk factors for death of complicated intra‑abdominal infection patients within 28 days of hospitalization (odds ratio=2.15, 2.68, 2.32, 3.08, 95% confidence interval as 1.03-4.50, 1.28-5.64, 1.09-4.96, 1.39-6.82, P<0.05).
    Conclusions Compared to patients with single-zone or multi-zone infections without zone D, patients with multi‑zone infections with zone D have higher proportions of pancreatic necrosis infection, percutaneous drainage, surgical treatment, surgical treatment ≥2 times, intra‑abdominal hemorrhage, and digestive tract fistula, a longer duration of ICU. APACHE Ⅱ score ≥15, pathogenic microorganism as the carbapenem‑resistant Gram‑negative bacilli, surgical treatment ≥2 times and septic shock are independent risk factors for death of com-plicated intra‑abdominal infection patients within 28 days of hospitalization.

     

/

返回文章
返回