Suppr超能文献

维持性血液透析治疗的糖尿病患者透析相关性心包炎的病程及转归

Course and outcome of dialysis pericarditis in diabetic patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis.

作者信息

Tseng Jing-Ren, Lee Ming-Jse, Yen Kung-Chi, Weng Cheng-Hao, Liang Chih-Chia, Wang I-Kuan, Chang Chiz-Tzung, Lin-Tan Dan-Tzu, Lin Ja-Liang, Yen Tzung-Hai

机构信息

Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

出版信息

Kidney Blood Press Res. 2009;32(1):17-23. doi: 10.1159/000201790. Epub 2009 Feb 12.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This observational study investigated the course and outcome of dialysis pericarditis in diabetic dialysis patients, as previous reports found that in contrast to uremic pericarditis, which responds in most cases to intensive hemodialysis, dialysis pericarditis resolves with intensification of hemodialysis in fewer cases.

METHODS

From 2002 through 2006, 88 maintenance hemodialysis patients (47 diabetic and 41 non-diabetic) were referred for management of dialysis pericarditis.

RESULTS

Dialysis pericarditis in 85.1% of diabetic and 82.9% of non-diabetic patients improved following institution of intensive hemodialysis. For the few unresponsive and critical cases, 8.5% of diabetic and 7.3% of non-diabetic patients received pericardiocentesis, whereas 6.4% of diabetic and 9.8% of non-diabetic patients received surgical drainage. In terms of outcome, 85.1, 4.3 and 10.6% of diabetic patients were alive without recurrence, alive with recurrence and deceased, respectively. There was no significant difference with their non-diabetic counterparts, for which the percentages were 87.8, 4.9 and 7.3%, respectively (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis did not find any significant difference in survival as well (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Whether used in diabetics or not, intensive hemodialysis remains the primary and most effective dialysis pericarditis treatment, whereas pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage should be reserved for the few unresponsive and critical cases.

摘要

引言

本观察性研究调查了糖尿病透析患者透析性心包炎的病程及转归,因为既往报告发现,与大多数情况下对强化血液透析有反应的尿毒症心包炎不同,透析性心包炎在较少病例中随着血液透析强化而缓解。

方法

2002年至2006年,88例维持性血液透析患者(47例糖尿病患者和41例非糖尿病患者)因透析性心包炎接受治疗。

结果

85.1%的糖尿病患者和82.9%的非糖尿病患者在强化血液透析后透析性心包炎有所改善。对于少数无反应的重症病例,8.5%的糖尿病患者和7.3%的非糖尿病患者接受了心包穿刺术,而6.4%的糖尿病患者和9.8%的非糖尿病患者接受了外科引流。在转归方面,糖尿病患者分别有85.1%、4.3%和10.6%存活且无复发、存活且复发以及死亡。与非糖尿病患者相比无显著差异,非糖尿病患者相应比例分别为87.8%、4.9%和7.3%(p>0.05)。Kaplan-Meier分析在生存率方面也未发现任何显著差异(p>0.05)。

结论

无论是否用于糖尿病患者,强化血液透析仍然是透析性心包炎的主要且最有效的治疗方法,而心包穿刺术或外科引流应仅用于少数无反应的重症病例。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验