Suppr超能文献

米多君与白蛋白预防肝硬化患者腹水穿刺诱导性循环功能障碍的比较:一项随机初步研究。

Comparison of midodrine and albumin in the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in cirrhotic patients: a randomized pilot study.

机构信息

Departments of *Tropical Medicine, Gastroenterology, and Hepatology †Clinical Pathology and Chemistry Medical Research Center, Ain Shams University, Abbasiya, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;48(2):184-8. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31829ae376.

Abstract

GOALS

In this pilot study, we compared midodrine and albumin in the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD).

BACKGROUND

PICD with pronounced arterial vasodilatation in cirrhotics with tense ascites can be prevented by the infusion of albumin, which is an expensive treatment modality. Various vasoconstrictors have also been used to prevent PICD, but there are few studies about the usage of midodrine.

STUDY

Fifty patients with cirrhosis and tense refractory ascites were randomly assigned to be treated with either midodrine (n=25) (12.5 mg 3 times/d; over 3 d) or albumin (n=25) (8 g/L of removed ascites) after a large-volume paracentesis. Effective arterial blood volume was assessed indirectly by measuring serum creatinine, serum sodium, plasma renin activity, and aldosterone concentration before and 6 days after paracentesis.

RESULTS

Midodrine therapy was cheaper compared with albumin therapy, but serum creatinine, serum sodium, plasma renin activity, and plasma aldosterone concentration values after treatment [0.99±0.19 to 3.02±2.58 mg/dL (P=0.001), 132.36±3.2 to 130.2±4.1 mEq/L (P<0.001), 3.03±0.33 to 4.2±0.76 ng/mL/h (P<0.001), and 166.72±64.26 to 298.64±130 pg/mL (P<0.001), respectively] significantly differed in the midodrine group from that in the albumin group [1.10±0.22 to 1.11±0.161 mg/dL (P=0.885), 132.2±3.524 to 131.88±3.09 mEq/L (P=0.246), 4±0.91 to 4.11±0.74 ng/mL/h (P=0.440), and 204.88±115.9 to 177.08±100.5 pg/mL (P<0.001), respectively]. Seven patients, among whom 6 were hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) positive, in the midodrine group of our study died as a consequence of liver failure complicated by acute renal failure, followed by hepatic encephalopathy. Whereas in the albumin group, even among the 7 patients with HCC, no patient died or developed hepatorenal syndrome or developed hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that midodrine is not as effective as intravenous albumin in preventing circulatory dysfunction after large-volume paracentesis in patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites, especially with HCC-positive patients.

摘要

目的

在这项初步研究中,我们比较了米多君和白蛋白在预防大量腹水穿刺引起的循环功能障碍(PICD)中的作用。

背景

在张力性腹水的肝硬化患者中,动脉扩张引起的 PICD 可以通过输注白蛋白来预防,这是一种昂贵的治疗方式。各种血管收缩剂也被用于预防 PICD,但关于米多君的使用研究很少。

研究

50 例肝硬化伴张力性难治性腹水患者在大量腹水穿刺后随机分为米多君(n=25)(12.5 mg,每日 3 次;持续 3 d)或白蛋白(n=25)(抽出腹水的 8 g/L)治疗组。在腹水穿刺前和 6 天后,通过测量血清肌酐、血清钠、血浆肾素活性和醛固酮浓度来间接评估有效动脉血容量。

结果

与白蛋白治疗相比,米多君治疗更便宜,但治疗后血清肌酐、血清钠、血浆肾素活性和血浆醛固酮浓度值[0.99±0.19 至 3.02±2.58 mg/dL(P=0.001),132.36±3.2 至 130.2±4.1 mEq/L(P<0.001),3.03±0.33 至 4.2±0.76 ng/mL/h(P<0.001),和 166.72±64.26 至 298.64±130 pg/mL(P<0.001)]在米多君组与白蛋白组之间存在显著差异[1.10±0.22 至 1.11±0.161 mg/dL(P=0.885),132.2±3.524 至 131.88±3.09 mEq/L(P=0.246),4±0.91 至 4.11±0.74 ng/mL/h(P=0.440),和 204.88±115.9 至 177.08±100.5 pg/mL(P<0.001)]。在我们的研究中,米多君组的 7 例患者中,有 6 例为肝癌(HCC)阳性,因并发急性肾衰竭的肝功能衰竭而死亡,随后出现肝性脑病。而在白蛋白组中,即使在 7 例 HCC 患者中,也没有患者死亡或发生肝肾综合征或出现肝性脑病。

结论

这项初步研究表明,米多君在预防肝硬化和张力性腹水患者大量腹水穿刺后循环功能障碍方面的效果不如静脉注射白蛋白,尤其是在 HCC 阳性患者中。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验