Yu Denghui, Zhan Jiayi, Du Hong, Zhu Pingping, Hu Haifeng, Xu Hongkai, Zhang Ludan, Hu Fei, Bi Zhanhu, Yang Xiaofei, Li Yanping, Lian Jianqi
Department of Infectious Diseases, Tangdu Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University, No. 569 Xinsi Road, Xi 'an, 710038, China.
Department of Critical Care Medicine, General Hospital of Southern Theatre Command of PLA, Guangzhou, China.
BMC Infect Dis. 2025 May 30;25(1):775. doi: 10.1186/s12879-025-11148-2.
BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids (GC) are commonly administered during the febrile and hypotensive phases of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) to alleviate inflammation and capillary leakage. However, clinical dosing regimens show marked variability. This study aims to evaluate the clinical necessity of high-dose GC therapy during the acute phase of HFRS. METHODS: A retrospective study involving 807 HFRS patients admitted to two centers was conducted. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare the effects of conventional-dose and high-dose GC on HFRS treatment outcomes and the risk of secondary infections. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospital stay, acute-phase fluid requirement, renal replacement rates, mechanical ventilation needs, severe hemorrhagic complications, or mortality between HFRS patients receiving conventional or high-dose GC. Among patients with a shock phase, the secondary infections rate was significantly higher with high-dose GC compared to conventional-dose (43.48% vs. 23.91%, p = 0.005). High-dose GC emerged as an independent risk factor for secondary infections (OR 2.88, 95%CI 1.41-5.88), while prophylactic antibiotics served as an independent protective factor (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.65). In patients without a shock phase, no significant difference was observed in the effect of the two GC doses on secondary infections. However, GC therapy ≥ 4 days was an independent risk factor (OR 2.54, 95%CI 1.21-5.37). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose GC show no superiority over conventional-dose GC on hospital stay, acute-phase fluid requirement, renal replacement rates, mechanical ventilation needs, severe hemorrhagic complications, or mortality. High-dose GC may increase secondary infections in HFRS patients with a shock phase. GC therapy ≥ 4 days may also increase secondary infections in patients without a shock phase.
背景:在肾综合征出血热(HFRS)的发热期和低血压期,通常会使用糖皮质激素(GC)来减轻炎症和毛细血管渗漏。然而,临床给药方案存在显著差异。本研究旨在评估HFRS急性期大剂量GC治疗的临床必要性。 方法:对两个中心收治的807例HFRS患者进行回顾性研究。采用倾向评分匹配和多因素逻辑回归模型,比较常规剂量和大剂量GC对HFRS治疗结局及继发感染风险的影响。 结果:接受常规剂量或大剂量GC的HFRS患者在住院时间、急性期液体需求量、肾脏替代率、机械通气需求、严重出血并发症或死亡率方面无显著差异。在休克期患者中,大剂量GC组的继发感染率显著高于常规剂量组(43.48%对23.91%,p = 0.005)。大剂量GC是继发感染的独立危险因素(OR 2.88,95%CI 1.41 - 5.88),而预防性使用抗生素是独立的保护因素(OR 0.29,95%CI 0.13 - 0.65)。在无休克期的患者中,两种GC剂量对继发感染的影响无显著差异。然而,GC治疗≥4天是一个独立危险因素(OR 2.54,95%CI 1.21 - 5.37)。 结论:在住院时间、急性期液体需求量、肾脏替代率、机械通气需求、严重出血并发症或死亡率方面,大剂量GC并不优于常规剂量GC。大剂量GC可能会增加有休克期的HFRS患者的继发感染。GC治疗≥4天也可能增加无休克期患者的继发感染。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-1-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-3-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-10-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-3-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-7
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-10-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-5-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-5-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004-10-18
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024-1-23
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023-9
Front Immunol. 2020