切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (07) : 667 -675. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.07.013

临床研究

危重患者全身皮下水肿分布特征的临床研究
张蔚青1, 顾秋莹2, 顾艳婷2, 曾倩2, 武钧2,(), 陈德昌2   
  1. 1. 200025 上海,上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院重症医学科;200025 上海,上海交通大学护理学院
    2. 200025 上海,上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2022-07-21 出版日期:2022-07-15
  • 通信作者: 武钧
  • 基金资助:
    上海高水平地方高校创新团队(SHSMU-ZDCX20212800); 上海市卫生健康委员会科研课题(202040107); 上海交通大学医学院2021年护理学科人才队伍建设项目; 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院护理部课题(RJHK-2020-01)

Distribution characteristics of generalized subcutaneous edema in critically ill patients

Weiqing Zhang1, Qiuying Gu2, Yanting Gu2, Qian Zeng2, Jun Wu2,(), Dechang Chen2   

  1. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China; Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Nursing, Shanghai 200025, China
    2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2022-07-21 Published:2022-07-15
  • Corresponding author: Jun Wu
引用本文:

张蔚青, 顾秋莹, 顾艳婷, 曾倩, 武钧, 陈德昌. 危重患者全身皮下水肿分布特征的临床研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(07): 667-675.

Weiqing Zhang, Qiuying Gu, Yanting Gu, Qian Zeng, Jun Wu, Dechang Chen. Distribution characteristics of generalized subcutaneous edema in critically ill patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(07): 667-675.

目的

探讨重症患者全身皮下水肿的分布特征和相关危险因素及皮下水肿的严重程度对预后的影响。

方法

采用简单随机抽样法对入住上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院重症医学科24 h内重症患者的7个区域36个位点进行皮下水肿半定量评估,采用按压凹陷试验并根据皮肤恢复时间将水肿分为4级。同时收集诊断、APACHE Ⅱ评分、器官功能等相关临床和实验室资料。采用二元logistic回归筛选全身及易发部位皮下发生水肿的影响因素及皮下水肿严重程度对预后的作用,采用受试者工作特征曲线来检验预后模型的预测效能。

结果

研究共纳入135例重症患者,其中37例(27.4%)出现皮下水肿。36个测量位点皮下水肿得分中位数为0.61(0.31,0.78),其中腹壁皮下水肿的发生率最高(86.5%),水肿程度为0.75(0.5,1.25)。在上肢越接近远心端,皮下水肿的发生率和程度越高,对于胸壁、腹壁、大腿和小腿,越接近重力依赖区,皮下水肿的发生率和程度越高。Logistic回归结果显示APACHE Ⅱ评分(>15分)和入科诊断(脓毒症)是全身及易发部分皮下水肿发生的危险因素。此外,全身皮下水肿总分为危重患者ICU住院内死亡的危险因素(OR=1.03,95% CI:1.00~1.06,P=0.038)。

结论

重症患者存在不同部位、不同程度的皮下水肿,其在全身分布具有不均质性,更易发生于腹壁并呈现重力依赖性分布。重症患者具有皮下水肿发生的多个独立危险因素,且皮下水肿严重程度与不良预后密切相关,应得到足够的重视。

Objective

To investigate the distribution characteristics and risk factors associated with generalized subcutaneous edema in critically ill patients and the impact of the severity of subcutaneous edema on prognosis.

Methods

Semi-quantitative assessment of subcutaneous edema was performed at 36 sites in seven body parts of critically ill patients within 24 hours of admission to the Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine using convenience sampling, and the edema was classified into seven grades using the pressure depression test and according to the skin recovery time. Relevant clinical and laboratory data such as diagnosis, APACHE Ⅱ score, and organ function were also collected.

Results

Binary logistic regression was used to screen for factors influencing the occurrence of subcutaneous edema in the whole body and susceptible parts, and the role of the severity of subcutaneous edema on prognosis. The median subcutaneous edema score at the 36 measurement sites was 0.61 (0.31, 0.78), with the highest incidence of subcutaneous edema in the abdominal wall (86.5%), with a degree of edema of 0.75 (0.5, 1.25). Logistic regression showed that APACHE Ⅱ score (>15) and admission diagnosis (sepsis) were risk factors for the development of subcutaneous edema in the general and vulnerable parts of the body. In addition, total systemic subcutaneous edema score was a risk factor for death within the ICU stay of critically ill patients (odds ratio=1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.00~1.06, P=0.038).

Conclusion

Critically ill patients have subcutaneous edema at different sites and to different degrees, which is characterized by a heterogeneous distribution throughout the body, is more likely to occur in the abdominal wall, and shows a gravity-dependent distribution. The severity of subcutaneous edema is associated with a poor prognosis in critically ill patients.

表1 危重患者全身皮下水肿评估部位和位点
图1 研究流程图
表2 患者一般人口学特征及疾病相关因素(n=135)[例(%)]
变量 无水肿组(n=98) 皮下水肿组(n=37) χ2/Z P
性别(例) 1.941 0.164
56(57.1) 26(70.3)
42(42.9) 11(29.7)
年龄(岁) 0.063 0.802
≤60 27(27.6) 11(29.7)
>60 71(72.4) 26(70.3)
体重指数(kg/m2 -1.095 0.274
<18 12(12.2) 4(10.8)
18~24 50(51.0) 15(40.5)
24~28 26(26.5) 13(35.1)
>28 10(10.2) 5(13.5)
入科诊断 -2.488 0.013
呼吸衰竭 26(26.5) 10(27.0)
腹腔感染 2(2.0) 2(5.4)
脓毒症 11(11.2) 16(43.2)
多器官功能衰竭 0(0) 2(5.4)
癌症术后 22(22.4) 1(2.7)
其他 37(37.8) 6(16.2)
心功能不全 6.743 0.009
11(11.2) 11(29.7)
87(88.8) 26(70.3)
肾功能不全 13.568 <0.001
79(80.6) 18(48.6)
19(19.4) 19(51.4)
腹腔感染 6.331 0.012
93(94.9) 30(81.1)
5(5.1) 7(18.9)
意识 -2.822 0.005
清醒 70(71.4) 17(45.9)
镇静 23(23.5) 15(40.5)
昏迷 5(5.1) 5(13.5)
手术 4.238 0.040
16(16.3) 12(32.4)
82(83.7) 25(67.6)
机械通气 16.336 <0.001
62(63.3) 9(24.3)
36(36.7) 28(75.7)
升压药 6.378 0.012
79(80.6) 22(59.5)
19(19.4) 15(40.5)
APACHE Ⅱ评分(分) 18.912 <0.001
≤15 51(52.0) 4(10.8)
>15 47(48.0) 33(89.2)
中心静脉压(mmHg) 16.451 <0.001
≤10 35(35.7) 8(21.6)
>10 10(10.2) 15(40.5)
缺失 53(54.1) 14(37.8)
N端脑钠肽前体(pg/ml) 25.269 <0.001
≤450 55(56.1) 3(8.1)
>450 43(43.9) 34(91.9)
肌酐(μmol/L) 17.210 <0.001
≤130 87(88.8) 21(56.8)
>130 11(11.2) 16(43.2)
前白蛋白(mg/L) -2.774 0.006
>200 9(9.2) 1(2.7)
150~200 16(16.3) 1(2.7)
100~150 21(32.7) 11(29.7)
<100 41(41.8) 24(64.9)
总蛋白(g/L) 6.262 0.012
≤60 50(51.0) 10(27.0)
<60 48(49.0) 27(73.0)
白蛋白(g/L) 8.882 0.003
≤35 29(29.6) 2(5.4)
<35 69(70.4) 35(94.6)
预后 17.727 <0.001
存活 95(96.9) 27(73.0)
死亡 3(3.1) 10(27.0)
表3 全身皮下水肿分级统计表(n=37)
表4 危重患者皮下水肿易发部位的多因素分析统计表(n=135)
表5 危重患者ICU住院内死亡的影响因素统计分析表(n=135)
图2 ICU住院内死亡影响因素的ROC曲线比较图
1
Schroth BE. Evaluation and management of peripheral edema [J]. JAAPA, 2005, 18(11): 29-34.
2
Mandal AK. Edema: a systematic approach to diagnosis and management [J]. Compr Ther, 2008, 34(2): 77-88.
3
Claure-Del Granado R, Mehta RL. Fluid overload in the ICU: evaluation and management [J]. BMC Nephrol, 2016, 17(1): 109.
4
王小雯. 血浆白蛋白水平与全身水肿情况对危重患者预后的影响 [J]. 中国实用医药, 2012, 7(36): 98-99.
5
Wiese J. The patient history: evidence-based approach [M]. Edema In: Tierey L, Henderson M, 2005, 1: 249-256.
6
Brodovicz KG, McNaughton K, Uemura N, et al. Reliability and feasibility of methods to quantitatively assess peripheral edema [J]. Clin Med Res, 2009, 7(1-2): 21-31.
7
Chen C, Lee J, Johnson AE, et al. Right ventricular function, peripheral edema, and acute kidney injury in critical illness [J]. Kidney Int Rep, 2017, 2(6): 1059-1065.
8
Danziger J, Chen K, Cavender S, et al. Admission peripheral edema, central venous pressure, and survival in critically ill patients [J]. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2016, 13(5): 705-711.
9
Cho S, Atwood JE. Peripheral edema [J]. Am J Med, 2002, 113(7): 580-586.
10
Koo LW, Reedy S, Smith JK. Patient history key to diagnosing peripheral edema [J]. Nurse Pract, 2010, 35(3): 44-52.
11
Mangialardi RJ, Martin GS, Bernard GR, et al. Hypoproteinemia predicts acute respiratory distress syndrome development, weight gain, and death in patients with sepsis. Ibuprofen in Sepsis Study Group [J]. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28(9): 3137-3145.
12
Cooper KL. Care of the lower extremities in patients with acute decompensated heart failure [J]. Crit Care Nurse, 2011, 31(4): 21-29.
13
Chen KP, Cavender S, Lee J, et al. Peripheral edema, central venous pressure, and risk of AKI in critical illness [J]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016, 11(4): 602-608.
14
Schlegel N, Baumer Y, Drenckhahn D, et al. Lipopolysaccharide-induced endothelial barrier breakdown is cyclic adenosine monophosphate dependent in vivo and in vitro [J]. Crit Care Med, 2009, 37(5): 1735-1743.
15
Lee WL, Slutsky AS. Sepsis and endothelial permeability [J]. N Engl J Med, 2010, 363: 689-691.
16
Uchimido R, Schmidt EP, Shapiro NI. The glycocalyx: a novel diagnostic and therapeutic target in sepsis [J]. Crit Care, 2019, 23: 16.
17
Wollborn J, Hassenzahl LO, Reker D, et al. Diagnosing capillary leak in critically ill patients: development of an innovative scoring instrument for non-invasive detection [J]. Ann Intensive Care, 2021, 11(1): 175.
18
Siddall E, Khatri M, Radhakrishnan J. Capillary leak syndrome: etiologies, pathophysiology, and management [J]. Kidney Int, 2017, 92(1): 37-46.
19
Jaffee W, Hodgins S, McGee WT. Tissue edema, fluid balance, and patient outcomes in severe sepsis: an organ systems review [J]. J Intensive Care Med, 2018, 33(9): 502-509.
20
Shah MG, Cho S, Atwood JE, et al. Peripheral edema due to heart disease: diagnosis and outcome [J]. Clin Cardiol, 2006, 29(1): 31-35.
[1] 陈敏华, 朱峥, 金君, 孙仁华, 陈健良. B型利钠肽在预测重症患者急性肾损伤发生发展中的临床价值[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(04): 279-284.
[2] 黄承路, 廖飞, 刘显平, 王志强. 血清外泌体Has_circ_0060937过度表达与NSCLC转移和不良预后的关系[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 490-494.
[3] 吴文昊, 王康, 朱端, 张厚丽, 陈俞坊, 周向东. 凝血功能异常对新冠肺炎重症患者的预后意义[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(02): 187-191.
[4] 黄其密, 吴雪, 范婷, 李春花. 重症患者肠内营养与呼吸机相关性肺炎的研究进展[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(03): 393-396.
[5] 陈蕾, 魏丽敏, 程鑫, 郭小霞, 蒋红利. 中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值对急性肾损伤重症患者预后的评估价值[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2021, 10(02): 64-69.
[6] 黄伟祥, 桑岭. 实时肺通气评估肺电阻抗成像技术在重症患者中的应用[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(01): 30-34.
[7] 刘玲, 李绪言, 徐永昊, 赵慧颖, 罗巧侠, 欧晓峰, 宋雷, 程渊, 周娟, 曾以萍, 刘爱华, 边巴穷达, 张烁, 吕杰, 王玺, 鲁燕云, 陈佰绪, 达珍, 俞云, 邵佳, 中华医学会重症医学分会重症呼吸学组, 西藏医学会高原医学暨心血管专业委员会, 中国医师协会重症医学医师分会. 高原地区新型冠状病毒肺炎重症患者(重型/危重型)诊疗专家共识[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 340-346.
[8] 刘艾然. 维生素D在重症患者中的应用—进展与困境[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 333-339.
[9] 许媛. 监测与评估是实现理想营养治疗的基石[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 291-294.
[10] 钱淑媛, 李晓青, 黄英姿, 杨毅, 潘纯, 邱海波. 新型冠状病毒肺炎老年重症患者的救治策略[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(03): 267-271.
[11] 陈胜龙, 胡北, 吕波, 孙诚, 陈纯波. 重症患者螺旋型鼻肠管优化置管——基于团队研究和实践经验[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(04): 370-373.
[12] 张志辉, 刘晓青. 重症患者巨细胞病毒活动性感染与Th1/Th2型细胞因子的研究进展[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(01): 109-112.
[13] 李金泽, 邱海波, 潘纯. 高流量鼻导管氧疗在术后脱机患者预防急性呼吸衰竭中的研究进展[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2019, 05(03): 264-267.
[14] 卢微微, 周坤, 陈崇翔, 赵擎宇. 重症医学支持下指导肿瘤患者化疗的评分系统及检验指标的分析[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2019, 05(02): 165-172.
[15] 郭玛娜, 李涛, 李娜. 4 086例危重症患者流行病学特点分析[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2017, 03(03): 157-159.
阅读次数
全文


摘要