Li Y, Wang P, Li C J, Zhang P, Zhang F, Cui Q W, Sun Y
Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, the 71st Group Army Hospital of PLA Army, Affiliated Huaihai Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221004, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2020 Feb 20;36(2):110-116. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2020.02.006.
To observe the effect of ulinastatin combined with glutamine on early hemodynamics in patients with severe burns. 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. 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 (>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 (<0.05 or <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/m(2) respectively, without statistically significant differences between any two groups (>0.05), and then they all gradually increased. On TD 3 and 7, compared with (684±82) and (742±46) mL/m(2) 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/m(2) respectively, and the GEDI of patients in the ulinastatin+ glutamine group was significantly increased (<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 (>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 (<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 (>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 (<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 (>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 (<0.05). 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.
观察乌司他丁联合谷氨酰胺对重度烧伤患者早期血流动力学的影响。选取2016年1月至2018年12月在徐州医科大学附属淮海医院住院治疗、符合纳入标准的32例重度烧伤患者,进行前瞻性随机对照试验。根据随机数字表,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)和乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组(男4例,女4例),年龄依次为(36±8)、(34±8)、(35±9)和(38±13)岁。自伤后第2天起,4组患者均给予等氮、等热量的营养支持,其中蛋白质每日2.0 g/kg。此外,乌司他丁组患者每8小时静脉注射100 kU乌司他丁,连续7天;谷氨酰胺组患者给予丙氨酰谷氨酰胺提供的0.3 g/kg蛋白质,连续7天;乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者接受乌司他丁组和谷氨酰胺组的相应治疗。借助脉搏指示连续心输出量(PiCCO)监测技术,于治疗第1、3、7天测量每组患者的心脏指数、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)。数据采用Fisher确切概率法、单因素方差分析、重复测量方差分析及Bonferroni法进行处理。4组患者在治疗第1天时心脏指数较低,SVI值低于正常范围,任意两组间差异无统计学意义(>0.05),随后均逐渐升高。在治疗第3天和第7天,与常规治疗组相比,其他三组患者的心脏指数和SVI均升高,且乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的心脏指数和SVI显著升高(<0.05或<0.01)。治疗第1天时,常规治疗组、乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组和乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的GEDI均处于正常低水平,分别为(659±58)、(661±79)、(659±88)和(653±71)mL/m²,任意两组间差异无统计学意义(>0.05),随后均逐渐升高。在治疗第3天和第7天,与常规治疗组的(684±82)和(742±46)mL/m²相比,乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组和乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的GEDI均升高,分别为(732±53)和(777±33)、(725±58)和(783±49)、(813±65)和(849±27)mL/m²,且乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的GEDI显著升高(<0.05)。4组患者在治疗第1天时SVRI均处于高水平,任意两组间差异无统计学意义(>0.05),随后均逐渐降低。在治疗第3天和第7天,与常规治疗组相比,其他三组患者的SVRI均升高,且乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组的SVRI显著升高(<0.05)。治疗第1天时,常规治疗组、乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组和乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的EVLWI均在正常范围内,分别为(6.6±0.6)、(6.3±0.4)、(6.5±0.4)和(6.6±0.6)mL/kg,任意两组间差异无统计学意义(>0.05),随后均呈上升趋势。在治疗第3天和第7天,与常规治疗组的(7.1±0.9)和(7.9±0.5)mL/kg相比,乌司他丁组、谷氨酰胺组和乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的EVLWI均降低,分别为(6.2±0.6)和(7.1±0.4)、(6.3±1.0)和(7.2±0.9)、(5.8±0.7)和(6.7±0.6)mL/kg,且乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组患者的EVLWI显著降低(<0.05)。治疗第1天时,4组患者的PVPI均在正常范围内,任意两组间差异无统计学意义(>0.05),随后均逐渐降低。在治疗第3天和第7天,与常规治疗组相比,其他三组患者的PVPI均降低,且乌司他丁+谷氨酰胺组的PVPI显著降低(<0.05)。乌司他丁联合谷氨酰胺治疗重度烧伤患者可提高心脏指数、SVI、GEDI及SVRI,降低EVLWI及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,使重度烧伤患者早期血流动力学得到显著改善。