首页> 外文OA文献 >Prognostische Bedeutung und ätiologische Aspekte von Leberfunktionsstörungen bei internistischen Intensivpatienten
【2h】

Prognostische Bedeutung und ätiologische Aspekte von Leberfunktionsstörungen bei internistischen Intensivpatienten

机译:重症监护内科患者肝功能异常的预后意义和病因学方面

摘要

The present retrospective study deals with the importance of liver dysfunction regarding internal critical care patients. The following aims were persuited by the study: 1. Evaluation of the prognostic importance of the hepatic function. 2. To attain an overview of hepatic function development and the incidence of liver dysfunktion of internal critical care patients. 3. Identification of atiologic aspects of liver dysfunction. 4. Effects of hepatic dysfunction on other organ systems. 300 patient records of an internal intensive care unit were analysed regarding the liver function at admission and its changes under critical care treatment. The patients were organized into four groups: Group I: Patients having no raised liver enzymes during the whole treatment Group II: Patients having a steady recovery of a liver dysfunction Group III: Patients having a constant persisting liver dysfunction Group IV: Patients with worsening of the liver function. The analysis of the liverspecific marker revealed, that 60% of critical care patients did not have a liver dysfunction during the whole treatment at all. 23% of all patients had a dysfunction of the liver at admission to the critical care unit, a recovery of this constricted liver funkction was seen in 62% of these patients. A constant worsening of the liver function was surveyed in 21% of all patients. To evaluate the prognostic importance of the liver function we surveyed the mortality rate and lengths of stay on the critical care unit. The patients with worsening of liver function had a significant higher risk to die and tended to stay longer on the ward, especially compared to the patients without a liver dysfunction (41% vs.15%; X=19,9 days vs. X= 10,8 days). The higher mortality-rate and longer stay on the critical care unit revealed, that patients with a constant worsening of the liver function had a worse prognosis than the other patients. Both of these observations can be a result of a higher morbidity. The condition of the hepatic organ system at admission to a critical care unit does not allow any conclusion about its development during critical care treatment. Worsening of the liver function was seen in approximately the same percentage of patients, independently whether there was a liver dysfunction or not at admission to the critical care unit (17% vs. 22%). Especially males tended to have a worsening of liver function (67% of group IV were males), and females tended to have a greater recovery potency (80% of group II were female). The age did not have a significant impact on the liver function. The hepatic organ system can be influenced by different kinds of treatment. This study revealed a singificant association between transfusionrate and worsening of the liver function (Group I: X=1,7 transfusions vs. Group IV: X=6 transfusions). The application of total parenteral nutrition over a longer period of time also seemed to be associated with an impairment of the liver function. Regarding drugs, almost half of the applied substances had a potencially hepatotoxicity (47,5%; n=133). Patients of goup IV were applied the highest number of these drugs (X=7,4). Especially compared to the patients without liver dysfunction (X=4,8 potentially hepatotoxic drugs) there was a significant difference. On the one hand these kind of above mentioned treatments themselves could trigger liver dysfunction. On the other hand patients who get all these different kind of treatment (parenteral nutrition, transfusions, high number of different drugs) are the more ciritical ill persons. The dysfunction of the liver could once again be an indicator for a higher morbidity. Interaction between the renal and hepatic organ system ist already known under physiological circumstances and becomes obvious under pathologic conditions. In this study both organ function were opposed to each other. But because of the missing data it was not possible to evaluate the renal function correctly and therefore no significant relation between the renal and hepatic organ system could be drawn. An increase of liver enzymes is often been seen in critical ill patients. Still more emphasis is placed on the cardiac, pulmonary and renal organ systems. But this study pointed out that changes in liver function also have prognostic significance and should not be underestimated.
机译:本回顾性研究探讨了对于内部重症监护患者肝功能障碍的重要性。该研究实现了以下目的:1.评估肝功能的预后重要性。 2.全面了解内部重症监护患者的肝功能发展和肝功能不全的发生率。 3.鉴定肝功能不全的病因。 4.肝功能障碍对其他器官系统的影响。分析了内部重症监护室的300例患者记录,分析其入院时的肝功能及其在重症监护治疗下的变化。将患者分为四组:第一组:整个治疗过程中肝酶未升高的患者第二组:肝功能障碍稳定恢复的患者第三组:肝功能障碍持续持续的患者第四组:肝硬化恶化的患者肝功能。对肝特异性标志物的分析显示,在整个治疗过程中,有60%的重症监护患者完全没有肝功能障碍。所有患者中有23%在重症监护病房入院时出现肝功能障碍,这些患者中有62%的患者出现了肝功能受限的恢复。在所有患者中,有21%的患者肝功能持续恶化。为了评估肝功能的预后重要性,我们调查了重症监护病房的死亡率和住院时间。肝功能恶化的患者死亡风险更高,并且倾向于留在病房的时间更长,特别是与没有肝功能障碍的患者相比(41%vs.15%; X = 19,9天vs. X = 10,8天)。较高的死亡率和重症监护病房的停留时间表明,肝功能持续恶化的患者的预后较其他患者差。这些观察结果都可能是较高发病率的结果。重症监护病房入院时肝脏器官系统的状况无法得出有关在重症监护治疗期间其发展的任何结论。在重症监护病房入院时,无论是否存在肝功能障碍,在大约相同百分比的患者中,肝功能的恶化情况均相同(分别为17%和22%)。特别是男性倾向于肝功能恶化(IV组中67%是男性),而女性则倾向于具有更大的恢复力(II组80%是女性)。年龄对肝功能没有明显影响。肝器官系统会受到不同治疗方法的影响。这项研究揭示了输血速度与肝功能恶化之间的显着关联(I组:X = 1,7输血与IV组:X = 6输血)。长时间接受全胃肠外营养似乎也与肝功能受损有关。关于药物,几乎一半的应用物质具有潜在的肝毒性(47.5%; n = 133)。静脉注射组患者使用了这些药物的最高数量(X = 7,4)。特别是与无肝功能障碍(X = 4,8可能具有肝毒性的药物)的患者相比,存在显着差异。一方面,上述类型的治疗本身可能引发肝功能障碍。另一方面,获得所有这些不同类型的治疗(肠胃外营养,输血,大量不同药物)的患者则是患重症者。肝功能不全可能再次提示更高的发病率。肾和肝器官系统之间的相互作用在生理情况下是已知的,并且在病理情况下变得明显。在这项研究中,两个器官的功能彼此相对。但是由于缺少数据,无法正确评估肾功能,因此无法得出肾与肝器官系统之间的显着关系。在重症患者中经常发现肝酶增加。心脏,肺部和肾脏器官系统仍受到更多重视。但是这项研究指出,肝功能的变化也具有预后意义,不应低估。

著录项

  • 作者

    Wernken Kerstin;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2005
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 ger
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号