中国科技论文统计源期刊 中文核心期刊  
美国《化学文摘》《国际药学文摘》
《乌利希期刊指南》
WHO《西太平洋地区医学索引》来源期刊  
日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)
第七届湖北十大名刊提名奖  
医药导报, 2019, 38(1): 100-102
doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1004-0781.2019.01.023
比阿培南延时输注治疗复杂性腹腔内感染的疗效评价
Treatment Evaluation of Prolonged Biapenem Infusion on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection
成云兰1,, 钱春艳1,, 杨玲2, 陈学敏2, 徐茵2, 张妍2, 薛晓燕1

摘要:

目的 观察比阿培南延时输注治疗复杂性腹腔感染患者的临床疗效,促进临床合理用药。方法 2011一2015年常州市第一人民医院使用比阿培南治疗严重腹腔感染的患者52例,根据比阿培南输注方式将患者分为治疗组(延时输注组)24例,比阿培南持续泵入0.3 g, q6h/q8h ,滴注3 h;对照组(正常输注组)28例,比阿培南常规静脉输注0.3 g,q6h/q8h,滴注0.5 h。 比较两组临床疗效。结果 治疗组和对照组退热时间分别为(13.5±8.3),(16.7±14.9) d;住院时间分别为(38.9±16.9),(45.8±13.6) d;治疗3 d后降钙素原分别下降(7.284±10.126),(5.234±8.004) μg·L-1,治疗组疗效优于对照组。结论 对于复杂性腹腔感染患者,比阿培南延时输注优于正常输注。

关键词: 比阿培南 ; 延时输注 ; 感染 ; 腹腔内 ; 复杂性 ; 降钙素原

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effects of delayed infusion and normal infusion in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections and to promote rational and effective use of drugs. Methods A total of 52 patients with severe abdominal infection in the First People's Hospital of Changzhou from 2011 to 2015 were divided into delayed infusion group (treatment group, 0.3 g biapenem, ivgtt,q6h/q8h, for 3 h) and normal infusion group (control group, 0.3 g biapenem, ivgtt, q6h/q8h, for 0.5 h) according to administration route. The currative effect was compared between two groups. Results The fever clearance time of treatment group and control group was (13.5±8.3) and (16.7±14.9) d; the length of hospital stay was (38.9±16.9) and (45.8±13.6) d; and the decrease rate of procalcitonin was (7.284±10.126) and (5.234±8.004) μg·L-1,repectively.The curative effect of treatment group was better than control group. Conclusion For patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, prolonged infusion is better than normal infusion of biapenem.

Key words: Biapenem ; Prolonged infusion ; Infections ; intra-abdominal ; complicated ; Procalcitoni

腹腔内感染(intra-abdominal infections ,IAI)是一类危害严重的常见感染性疾病,流行病学资料显示约1/4的严重脓毒症或感染性休克由IAI引起[1]。腹腔内感染可分为非复杂性腹腔内感染和复杂性腹腔内感染(cIAI)。其中cIAI病情复杂,病死率高,是目前临床治疗的难题,在重症监护病房(ICU)致死性感染源中位列第二[2]。抗感染治疗是治疗重症腹腔感染的重要方法之一,抗菌药物的合理使用严重影响着重症腹腔感染患者的预后[3]。比阿培南等碳青霉烯类抗菌药物是治疗复杂性腹腔感染的有效抗菌药物之一,在临床上应用较为广泛。本研究将比阿培南治疗的重症腹腔感染患者分为延时输注组与正常输注组,评价患者疗效、预后等多方面情况,为临床治疗严重腹腔感染患者提供更有效的个体化治疗方案,促进临床合理有效用药。

1 资料与方法
1.1 临床资料

收集常州市第一人民医院2011年1月1日—2015年12月31日使用比阿培南诊治严重腹腔感染患者共52例, 纳入标准:①年满18岁的患者,性别不限;②符合复杂性腹腔感染的标准,即各种原因所导致的腹腔脏器发生感染,炎症扩散至腹腔内导致腹膜炎或者脓肿形成;③对本次研究知情并同意进行配合的患者;④治疗过程中动态监测了体温、降钙素原(procalcitonin,PCT)、C反应蛋白(CRP)、白细胞(WBC)、中性粒细胞比例(N)(包括治疗前、治疗3 d后、治疗结束后)。

排除标准:①严重肾功能不全的患者。②数据不全者。③对碳青霉烯类抗菌药物过敏者。④长期使用糖皮质激素或免疫抑制药者。⑤妊娠期、哺乳期妇女。按比阿培南输注方式将患者分为对照组28例,其中男17例,女11例,平均年龄( 59.9±11.8 )岁,器官衰竭10例,有抗菌药物治疗史18例;治疗组24例,其中男14例,女10例,平均年龄( 63.0±11.1)岁,器官衰竭9例,有抗菌药物治疗史16例,两组比较差异无统计学意义。

1.2 治疗方法

对照组即正常输注组,给予比阿培南(正大天晴制药集团公司生产,批准文号:国药准字H20080743)常规静脉输注0.3 g ,q6h/q8h,滴注0.5 h;治疗组即延时输注组,给予比阿培南持续泵入0.3 g, q6h/q8h ,滴注3 h。

1.3 疗效判定标准

抗菌药物的临床疗效区分为临床治愈和临床无效。其中临床治愈:患者在治疗结束后随访时所有入选时的症状、体征均已消失或完全恢复正常,且影像学和实验室检查等非微生物学指标均已恢复正常。临床无效:患者在治疗结束后随访时所有入选时的症状、体征持续或不完全消失或恶化;或者出现了这一疾病的新的症状或体征和或使用了其他的针对这一疾病的抗菌治疗措施。对于症状和体征虽有一定的改善,但仍需更改治疗方案继续治疗的患者仍判定为无效。

1.4 统计学方法

采用SPSS22.0版统计分析软件,计量资料用均数±标准差( x ¯ ±s)表示,组间比较采用单因素方差分析,LSD方差分析法;以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果
2.1 两组临床疗效比较

两组在住院时间和退热时间方面差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),治愈率以及急性生理与慢性健康评分(APACHEⅡ评分)等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(表1)。

表1 两组患者临床疗效比较
Tab.1 Comparison of clinical data between two groups of patients x¯±s
组别 例数 住院时间 给药时间 退热时间 经验性抗感染 有病原学依据 治愈率 联合用药率 APACHE Ⅱ评分
d %
对照组 28 45.8±13.6 17.5±14.0 16.7±14.9 5 23 87.5 64.3 29.7±18.2
治疗组 24 38.9±16.9*1 18.8±3.8 13.5±8.3*1 3 21 92.7 70.8 30.7±17.4

与对照组比较,*1P<0.05

Compared with control group,*1P<0.05

表1 两组患者临床疗效比较

Tab.1 Comparison of clinical data between two groups of patients x¯±s

2.2 两组患者治疗期间体温及炎症相关指标变化情况

收集两组患者输注前、输注第3天和输注后的体温、PCT、CRP、WBC、N等炎症指标进行统计分析,见表2。其中两组患者治疗前后指标变化均差异无统计学意义,治疗3 d后体温下降幅度、N下降幅度、WBC下降幅度、PCT及其下降幅度两组均差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。

表2 两组患者体温及相关炎症指标变化情况
Tab.2 Body temperature and inflammatory markers of two groups of patients x¯±s
组别与时间 例数 体温/ ℃ CRP/(mg·L-1) WBC/(×109·L-1) N/% PCT/(μg·L-1)
平均值 下降值 平均值 下降值 平均值 下降值 平均值 下降值 平均值 下降值
对照组 28
治疗前 38.7±0.4 - 54.47±23.47 - 18.12±8.29 - 86.12±6.85 - 11.31±14.34 -
治疗3 d后 38.3±0.3 0.4±0.14 45.48±20.99 9.80±12.02 16.10±7.04 2.26±3.35 82.24±9.57 3.88±6.65 6.48±9.50 5.23±8.00
治疗结束后 37.0±0.5 1.7±0.7 18.97±11.96 35.50±22.90 10.31±4.64 7.53±8.30 71.98±14.42 14.14±6.40 0.71±0.715 10.94±14.13
治疗组 24
治疗前 38.7±0.3 - 53.25±15.7 - 20.00±4.43 - 88.06±3.62 - 9.02±11.99 -
治疗3 d后 37.3±0.3 1.2±0.5*1 38.6±12.16 15.57±11.30 11.53±2.58 7.76±4.18*2 79.01±5.40 9.05±5.44*2 2.08±3.21*2 7.28±10.13*1
治疗结束后 36.9±0.3 1.8±0.5 16.80±8.61 36.45±14.70 8.53±3.67 10.51±5.91 72.02±7.95 16.11±7.55 0.36±0.32 9.59±12.40

与对照组比较,*1P<0.01,*2P<0.05

Compared with control group,*1P<0.01,*2P<0.05

表2 两组患者体温及相关炎症指标变化情况

Tab.2 Body temperature and inflammatory markers of two groups of patients x¯±s

3 讨论
3.1 延时输注组的疗效优于常规输注组

比阿培南是国内新上市的碳青霉烯类抗菌药物,为时间依赖性抗菌药物,评价其药动学/药效学(PK/PD)指标为体内血药浓度大于最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的时间(即T>MIC)。PK/PD理论及蒙特卡洛模拟法证实,对于时间依赖性抗菌药物,延长每次给药时间可以T>MIC,提高抗菌效果[4,5]。EIKI等[6]对比3及0.5 h输注比阿培南的药效学研究发现,3 h输注比阿培南在血浆中T>MIC显著高于0.5 h输注(P<0.05),支持了比阿培南3 h延时输注的临床应用,并且相关研究显示比阿培南在常用溶媒中稳定性良好[7],可以实现延长给药。

两组患者在住院时间与退热时间两项指标差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),延时输注治疗的患者退热速度快于常规输注治疗的患者,且前者住院治疗时间更短,起效更快。从缩短住院时间、缩短抗菌药物疗程来看,本研究结果亦提示延时输注有更好的经济学应用前景。研究显示,鉴于药物经济学上的显著优势,国外已有多家医院全院实施延时输注哌拉西林他唑巴坦的给药方式[8]。哌拉西林他唑巴坦与比阿培南同属于时间依赖性的β-内酰胺类抗菌药物,其药动学特点相似,在一定程度上具有可参考性。

另外,两组患者治疗初期(治疗开始后3 d)体温、PCT、N降幅均差异有统计学意义,表明延时输注在初期感染控制方面也优于常规输注组。

3.2 PCT可作为初期疗效的评价指标

目前,CRP、WBC、N、PCT均为抗感染治疗常用的有效性评价指标。PCT是ASSICOT等[9]在1993年发现的一种新型炎症指标,是一种无激素活性的糖蛋白。研究表明严重感染并伴有全身炎症反应时,血清PCT水平就会明显上升,其上升程度与细菌感染严重程度成正比。而当感染控制后血清中PCT水平亦会随之下降。因而PCT可作为判断病情与预后以及疗效观察的可靠指标[10]。另有研究表明,根据PCT水平指导复杂腹腔感染的抗菌药物治疗可明显缩短疗程,减少抗菌药物暴露,不增加病死率及不良事件发生率[11]

比阿培南延时输注能提高抗菌药物的疗效,缩短疗程,可以考虑在重症患者中推广,以减少抗菌药物的滥用。另外,本研究还存在一定局限性:①研究样本例数偏少,不能更好地反映群体实际情况;②研究对象中存在联合用药的情况,不能排除药物相互作用的影响;③研究时间较短,指标参数检测可能存在一定误差。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献

[1] 刘畅,李建国.IDSA/SISA复杂腹腔内感染诊治指南解读[J].中国循证医学杂志,2015,15(7):777-780.
正腹腔内感染(intra-abdominal infection,IAI)是一类危害严重的常见感染性疾病。流行病学资料显示约1/4的严重脓毒症或感染性休克由IAI引起,IAI是继肺部感染后,感染性休克的第二大病因[1]。2010年,美国感染病学会(Infectious Diseases Society of America,IDSA)和外科感染学会(Surgical Infection Society of America,SISA)更新发布了复杂腹腔内感染(complicated intra-abdominal infection,c IAI)诊治指南(以下简称IDSA指南)[2],基于循证医学证据,对c IAI的临床诊治提出了指导性意见。自其发布以来,该指南的影响力迅速超越了北美地区范
URL    
[本文引用:1]
[2] SOLOMKIN J S,MAZUSKI J E,BRADLEY J S,et al.Dia-gnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children:guidelines by the surgical infection society and the infectious diseases society of America[J].Surg Infect(Larchmt),2010,11(1):79-109.
DOI:10.1089/sur.2009.9930      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[3] STURKENBOOM M C,GOETTSCH W G,PICELLI G,et al.Inappropriate initial treatment of secondary intra-abdominal infections leads to increased risk of clinical failure and costs[J].J Clin Pharmacol,2005,60(4):438-443.
AIMS: The objective of this population-based, retrospective cohort study was to investigate the incidence and initial antibiotic treatment of secondary intra-abdominal infections (sIAI) and to assess whether inappropriate initial antibiotic therapy affects patient outcomes.METHODS: All patients hospitalized for sIAI (1995-1998) were identified in the PHARMO Record Linkage System, a patient-centric database including pharmacy dispensing records from community pharmacies linked to hospitalization records in the Netherlands. Complementary in-hospital antibiotic drug use was obtained from the computerized inpatient pharmacy files. The patient outcomes considered were switch to second-line antibiotic treatment, re-operation, and death. In addition, a composite variable clinical failure was constructed based on the above-mentioned outcomes. Furthermore, the effect of clinical failure on length of hospital stay and costs of hospitalization was assessed. Associations between appropriateness of initial antibiotic treatment and outcomes were estimated using multivariate logistic and linear regression models.RESULTS: In the source population of 228,000 persons, 175 cases were classified as sIAI (mean age 49.3 +/- 24.5, 50.9% male) resulting in an incidence of 2.3/10,000 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0, 2.7]. Initial antibiotic treatment was appropriate for 84% of the cases. The risk of clinical failure was 17.1%. Inappropriate initial antibiotic treatment increased the risk of clinical failure 3.4-fold (95% CI 1.3, 9.1). Length of hospital stay and costs of hospitalization were significantly increased for patients with clinical failure.CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy in sIAI patients leads to more clinical failure resulting in a longer hospital stay and higher costs of hospitalization compared with appropriate initial antibiotic therapy.
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02443.x      PMID:16187977      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[4] FALAGAS M E,TANSARLI G S,IKAWA K,et al.Clinical outcomes with extended or continuous versus short-term intravenous infusion of carbapenems and piperacillin /tazobactam:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Clin Infect Dis,2013, 56( 2):272-282.
We sought to study whether the better pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam, when the duration of infusion is longer, were associated with lower mortality. PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies reporting on patients treated with extended (>= 3 hours) or continuous (24 hours) versus short-term duration (20-60 minutes) infusions of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam. Fourteen studies were included (1229 patients). Mortality was lower among patients receiving extended or continuous infusion of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam compared to those receiving short-term (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], .41-.83). Patients with pneumonia who received extended or continuous infusion had lower mortality than those receiving short-term infusion (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96). Data for other specific infections were not available. The available evidence from mainly nonrandomized studies suggests that extended or continuous infusion of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with lower mortality. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings before such approaches become widely used.
DOI:10.1093/cid/cis857      PMID:23074314      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[5] YUSUF E,SPAPEN H,PIERARD D.Prolonged vs intermi-ttent infusion of piperacillin /tazobactam in crtically ill patients:a narrative and systematic review[J].J Crrit Care,2014,29( 6):1089-1095.
The purpose of this study is to review the rationale of prolonged (ie, extended or continuous) infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) in critically ill patients and to perform a systematic review that compare the effectiveness of prolonged infusion with intermittent bolus of PIP/TAZ. A search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to April 2014. For systematic review, studies comparing the effectiveness of prolonged and bolus administration of PIP/TAZ were included. The level of evidence is determined using best-evidence synthesis, which consisted of 5 possible levels of evidence: strong, moderate, limited, conflicting, or no evidence. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies that account for an eventual benefit of prolonged PIP/TAZ infusion were reviewed. In the systematic review, 1 randomized controlled trial was identified that showed higher ure in the prolonged than in the intermittent infusion group, yet the chosen clinical outcome in this study, decline in mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score is controversial. Of 6 retrospective cohort studies, 4 showed either less mortality, a higher clinical cure rate, or shorter length of hospital stay with prolonged PIP/TAZ treatment. The level of evidence supporting a better clinical outcome with prolonged infusion of PIP/TAZ is moderate. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies provide a robust rationale to prefer prolonged above intermittent infusion of PIP/TAZ. However, although some studies suggest a better outcome in critically ill patients receiving prolonged infusion, the level of evidence is moderate.
DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.07.033      PMID:25179412      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[6] EIKI K,JUNKO K,YASUYUKI N,et al.Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of biapenem in Bronchial epithelial lining fluid in healthy volunteers given half-hour and three-hour intravenous infusions[J].Antimicrob Agents Chemother,2009,53(7):2799-2803.
DOI:10.1128/AAC.01578-08      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[7] 黄品芳,刘亦伟,王长连,.注射用比阿培南与5种输液配伍稳定性考察[J].海峡药学,2011,23(9):44-46.
[本文引用:1]
[8] 李明艳,杨志杰,赖军华.泵注比阿培南延长给药时间治疗ICU重症感染临床研究[J].中国医院药学杂志,2016,36(2):142-145.
<p><strong>目的:</strong>探讨微泵输注比阿培南延长给药时间对重症感染的疗效是否优于传统短时间间断输注法。<strong>方法:</strong>选择入住ICU,经临床判断需要给予比阿培南治疗的重症感染患者,按最小不平衡指数法随机分组,分为30 min输注组(TI)和3 h输注组(EI),观察2组患者治疗的安全性、有效性及经济性。<strong>结果:</strong>共纳入128例患者,实际完成104例,延长输注组54例,临床有效率66.7%,传统输注组50例,临床有效率64.0%,2组患者的临床有效率、细菌清除率及不良反应均无统计学显著差异,但是延长输注组比阿培南用药天数[延长输注组:6.6&plusmn;2.9,传统输注组:(8.1&plusmn;3.9)d,<em>P</em>=0.035]及人均费用[延长输注组:(3 459&plusmn;1 752)元,传统输注组:(4 931&plusmn;2 836)元,<em>P</em>=0.002]显著低于传统输注组。<strong>结论:</strong>比阿培南延长输注对重症感染的治疗结果优于传统输注,可以作为传统输注法的一种更优替代。</p>
[本文引用:1]
[9] ASSICOT M,GENDREL D,CARSIN H,et al.High serum procalcitonin concentrations in patients with sepsis and infection[J].Lancet,1993,341(8844):515-518.
High concentrations of calcitonin-like immunoreactivity have been found in the blood of patients with various extrathyroid diseases. By means of a monoclonal immunoradiometric assay for calcitonin precursors, we have measured serum concentrations of procalcitonin in patients with various bacterial and viral infections. 79 children (newborn to age 12 years) in hospital with suspected infections were investigated prospectively. 19 patients with severe bacterial infections had very high serum concentrations of procalcitonin at diagnosis (range 6-53 ng/mL) in comparison with 21 children found to have no signs of infection (baseline concentrations <0 1 ng/mL). Serum procalcitonin values decreased rapidly during antibiotic therapy. 11 patients with peripheral bacterial colonisation or local infections without invasive sepsis and 18 (86%) of 21 patients with viral infections had concentrations within or slightly above the normal range (0 1-1 5 ng/mL). Among 9 severely burned patients studied in an intensive care unit, the post-traumatic course of procalcitonin concentrations (range 0 1-120 ng/mL) was closely related to infectious complications and acute septic episodes. Concentrations of mature calcitonin were normal in all subjects, whatever procalcitonin concentrations were found. Concentrations of a substance immunologically identical to procalcitonin are raised during septic conditions. Serum concentrations seem to be correlated with the severity of microbial invasion.
DOI:10.1016/0140-6736(93)90277-N      PMID:8094770      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[10] SCHUETZ P,CHIAPPA V,BRIEL M,et al.Procalcitonina-lgorithms for antibiotic therapy decisions:a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and recommendations for clinical algorithms[J].Arch Intern Med,2011,171(15):1322-1331.
DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.318      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[11] 杨晓磊,王源荣,洪亮.血清降钙素原指导下短程抗菌药物治疗复杂腹腔感染的临床研究[J].东南大学学报,2016,35(2):236-238.
目的:探讨根据血清降钙素原测定值变化指导短程抗菌药物治疗复杂腹腔感染的安全性和有效性。方法:选择96例普通外科住院治疗的复杂腹腔感染患者,随机分为试验组(47例)和对照组(49例),留取各组基线血清降钙素原值。外科干预后每24 h测定血清降钙素原水平。试验组在血清降钙素原〈0.5 ng·ml-1或下降至术后首次测定值的30%或以下,且临床症状缓解后停用抗菌药物;对照组病例在急性感染症状、体征消失,体温和血白细胞计数正常3 d后停用抗菌药物。比较两组出现手术部位感染、腹腔感染再发、30 d内死亡、首次抗菌药物疗程、30 d内无抗菌药物使用天数和住院时间的差异。结果:两组出现手术部位感染、腹腔感染再发、30 d内死亡的发生率及住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义,而试验组的首次抗菌药物疗程明显短于对照组[(5.4±1.1)d vs.(8.6±1.4)d],30 d内无抗菌药物使用天数亦多于对照组[(23.7±2.4)d vs.(20.7±2.1)d]。结论:根据血清降钙素原水平指导复杂腹腔感染的抗菌药物治疗可明显缩短疗程,减少抗菌药物暴露,不增加死亡率及不良事件发生率,安全有效。
[本文引用:1]
资源
PDF下载数    
RichHTML 浏览数    
摘要点击数    

分享
导出

相关文章:
关键词(key words)
比阿培南
延时输注
感染
腹腔内
复杂性
降钙素原

Biapenem
Prolonged infusion
Infections
intra-abdominal
complicated
Procalcitoni

作者
成云兰
钱春艳
杨玲
陈学敏
徐茵
张妍
薛晓燕

CHENG Yunlan
QIAN Chunyan
YANG Ling
CHEN Xuemin
XU Yin
ZHANG Yan
XUE Xiaoyan