Effect of continuous renal replacement therapy during percutaneous drainage in severe acute pancreatitis patients: a retrospective cohort study
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.06.011
- VernacularTitle:CRRT对重症急性胰腺炎患者接受经皮引流治疗的影响:一项回顾性队列研究
- Author:
Borui SUN
1
;
Chun ZHANG
;
Ting LIN
;
Sinan LIU
;
Zheng WANG
;
Jingyao ZHANG
;
Chang LIU
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学第一附属医院麻醉科
- Keywords:
Continuous renal replacement therapy;
Severe acute pancreatitis;
Percutaneous drainage
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2019;31(6):714-718
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) receiving percutaneous drainage (PCD). Methods Clinical data of SAP patients receiving PCD admitted to department of hepatobiliary surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from November 11th 2015 to May 13th 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into CRRT group and control group according to whether or not receiving CRRT. Demographic data, relevant variables before and after PCD, complication and outcome were all compared. Results A total of 75 patients were included in the study, 30 were treated with application of CRRT and 45 without CRRT. ① There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), medical history (smoking, drinking), complications (cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency), etiology (gallstone, alcohol abuse, hyperlipidemia and others), or white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum procalcitonin (PCT), fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agent or intra-abdominal pressure within 48 hours after admission between the two groups. However, acute physiology and chronic health evaluationⅡ(APACHEⅡ) score within 48 hours after admission of CRRT group was significantly higher than that of control group (18.3±4.5 vs. 12.8±6.2, P < 0.05). ② There was no significant difference in WBC, PCT, APACHEⅡ score or computed tomography severity index (CTSI) before PCD between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the position or times of PCD procedure between the two groups, but the time interval of PCD in the CRRT group was significantly longer than that in the control group (days: 19.4±5.4 vs. 12.8±2.2, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in drainage of fluid properties, incidence of abdominal bleeding, infection, gastrointestinal fistula, endoscopic removal of necrotic tissue, laparotomy for removal of necrotic tissue or the time from PCD to endoscopy or laparotomy between two groups. However, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and the length of hospital stay in the CRRT group were significantly longer than those in the control group (days: 23.2±8.5 vs. 15.3±12.1, 51.2±21.2 vs. 31.2±14.0, both P < 0.01). ③ Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant differences in 1-year or 3-year cumulative survival rates between the two groups (χ21 = 0.097, P1 = 0.755; χ22 = 0.013, P2 = 0.908). Conclusions CRRT is safe and feasible in the treatment of SAP patients receiving PCD procedure. It does not increase the risk of bleeding and may delay the time interval of PCD intervention. However, it may prolong the length of ICU stay and the length of hospital stay. It should be worthy of much attention for clinicians.
