Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):121-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b42a1c.
To determine what physiological and biochemical factors predict development of bacteremia in nontransplanted patients with acute on chronic liver failure and, on diagnosis of bacteremia, what is the natural history of bacteremic patients versus control subjects (acute on chronic liver failure).
None.
Retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively and entered into a dedicated physiology database.
Specialist liver intensive therapy unit.
Critically ill non-transplanted patients with acute on chronic liver failure admitted between January 2003 and July 2005.
One hundred eighty-four patients were defined with acute on chronic liver failure; 67 (36%) had bacteremia. One hundred seventeen (64%) patients did not (acute on chronic liver failure). Fifty-eight percent of isolates were Gram-negative organisms, 36% were Gram-positives, and 6% fungemia. Median time to first bacteremia was 8 days (range, 3-12 days). On admission (univariate), bacteremic patients had significantly higher Modified End Stage Liver Disease scores (27 vs. 24, p = .037), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (23 vs. 21, p = .049), and greater degrees of encephalopathy (Glasgow Coma Scale score 10 vs. 12, p = .001). During their liver intensive therapy unit course, bacteremic patients had significantly greater requirements for renal replacement therapy (64% vs. 49%, p = .043), mechanical ventilation (88% vs. 68%, p = .002), and a longer median liver intensive therapy unit stay (16 vs. 5 days, p < .001). Survival to hospital discharge was worse in the bacteremic group (25% vs. 56%, p < .001). Multivariate analysis (logistic regression) was performed separately modeling with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Modified End Stage Liver Disease. In the first model, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (odds ratio 1.24) and bacteremia (2.24) were independent predictors of mortality. In the later model, Modified End Stage Liver Disease (odds ratio, 1.06), requirement for renal replacement therapy (3.08), Glasgow Coma Scale (0.72), and bacteremia (2.30) were significant. Both models performed similarly (Modified End Stage Liver Disease area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.864; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 0.862).
In nontransplanted patients with acute on chronic liver failure, bacteremia was associated with increased severity of illness on admission, greater requirements for organ support, and independently adversely impacted on survival. Higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Modified End Stage Liver Disease scores were also independently predictive of mortality.
确定哪些生理和生化因素可预测非移植的慢加急性肝衰竭患者发生菌血症,并在诊断为菌血症后,了解菌血症患者与对照患者(慢加急性肝衰竭)的自然病程有何不同。
无。
前瞻性收集数据并录入专用生理学数据库的回顾性分析。
肝脏重症监护专科病房。
2003 年 1 月至 2005 年 7 月期间入住的患有慢加急性肝衰竭的非移植危重症患者。
184 例患者被定义为慢加急性肝衰竭;67 例(36%)发生菌血症。117 例(64%)未发生菌血症。58%的分离株为革兰阴性菌,36%为革兰阳性菌,6%为真菌血症。首次菌血症的中位时间为 8 天(范围 3-12 天)。入院时(单变量),菌血症患者的改良终末期肝病评分(27 分 vs. 24 分,p =.037)、急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分(23 分 vs. 21 分,p =.049)和更严重的肝性脑病(格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分 10 分 vs. 12 分,p =.001)明显更高。在肝脏重症监护病房期间,菌血症患者的肾脏替代治疗需求明显更高(64% vs. 49%,p =.043)、机械通气(88% vs. 68%,p =.002)和中位肝脏重症监护病房住院时间明显更长(16 天 vs. 5 天,p <.001)。菌血症组的住院存活率更差(25% vs. 56%,p <.001)。分别使用急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 和改良终末期肝病模型进行多变量分析(逻辑回归)。在第一个模型中,急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II(比值比 1.24)和菌血症(2.24)是死亡率的独立预测因素。在后来的模型中,改良终末期肝病(比值比,1.06)、肾脏替代治疗的需求(3.08)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(0.72)和菌血症(2.30)是显著的。两个模型的性能相似(改良终末期肝病的受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.864;急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II,0.862)。
在非移植的慢加急性肝衰竭患者中,菌血症与入院时疾病严重程度增加、器官支持需求增加有关,并独立影响生存。较高的急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 和改良终末期肝病评分也可独立预测死亡率。