不同感染源对败血症相关性弥散性血管内凝血治疗药物的预后影响。

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S484602
Makoto Kobayashi, Kyohei Sakurai, Yoshimatsu Ehama
{"title":"不同感染源对败血症相关性弥散性血管内凝血治疗药物的预后影响。","authors":"Makoto Kobayashi, Kyohei Sakurai, Yoshimatsu Ehama","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S484602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sepsis can be caused by various infectious sources; however, treatment strategies for secondary disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) differ between countries. The Japanese sepsis guidelines recommend the use of two drugs for DIC but do not specify which drugs should be used and under which conditions. No clear reports have compared the outcomes of DIC treatments based on the source of infection. This is the first study to clarify the difference in prognosis by the source of infection and compare the effect of the treatment of choice for DIC on prognosis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective, nonrandomized cohort study included 411 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of sepsis-associated DIC who were initiated on DIC therapies. Recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM) preparation and antithrombin (AT) replacement therapy were the DIC therapies used. The patients were divided into five groups determined to be the primary source of infection for treatment: intestine-related, biliary tract, respiratory tract, urinary tract, and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). In addition to differences in DIC treatment, we evaluated the following three covariates that may influence mortality, considering the influence of background interactions at the infection source: serum albumin concentration, APACHE-II score, and blood antithrombin activity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between the covariates and compare their effect on 60-day survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Univariate analysis of the DIC drug choice results showed that survival was statistically significantly higher in the rTM arm for biliary tract infections (P = 0.002) and CRBSI (P = 0.021). However, multivariate analysis with other covariates showed that AT replacement therapy was statistically effective for respiratory tract infections (hazard ratio, 0.353; P = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed that the pathogenesis of severe sepsis with DIC differs depending on the source of infection which should be considered when developing treatment strategies. Particularly, the importance of anti-DIC drug selectivity based on the source of infection was confirmed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":"16 ","pages":"285-295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11611707/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic Impact of Therapeutic Agents for Septic-Associated Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation According to Different Sources of Infection.\",\"authors\":\"Makoto Kobayashi, Kyohei Sakurai, Yoshimatsu Ehama\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAEM.S484602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sepsis can be caused by various infectious sources; however, treatment strategies for secondary disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) differ between countries. The Japanese sepsis guidelines recommend the use of two drugs for DIC but do not specify which drugs should be used and under which conditions. No clear reports have compared the outcomes of DIC treatments based on the source of infection. This is the first study to clarify the difference in prognosis by the source of infection and compare the effect of the treatment of choice for DIC on prognosis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective, nonrandomized cohort study included 411 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of sepsis-associated DIC who were initiated on DIC therapies. Recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM) preparation and antithrombin (AT) replacement therapy were the DIC therapies used. The patients were divided into five groups determined to be the primary source of infection for treatment: intestine-related, biliary tract, respiratory tract, urinary tract, and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). In addition to differences in DIC treatment, we evaluated the following three covariates that may influence mortality, considering the influence of background interactions at the infection source: serum albumin concentration, APACHE-II score, and blood antithrombin activity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between the covariates and compare their effect on 60-day survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Univariate analysis of the DIC drug choice results showed that survival was statistically significantly higher in the rTM arm for biliary tract infections (P = 0.002) and CRBSI (P = 0.021). However, multivariate analysis with other covariates showed that AT replacement therapy was statistically effective for respiratory tract infections (hazard ratio, 0.353; P = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed that the pathogenesis of severe sepsis with DIC differs depending on the source of infection which should be considered when developing treatment strategies. Particularly, the importance of anti-DIC drug selectivity based on the source of infection was confirmed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"285-295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11611707/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S484602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S484602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:脓毒症可由多种感染源引起;然而,继发性弥散性血管内凝血(DIC)的治疗策略在各国有所不同。日本脓毒症指南推荐使用两种药物治疗DIC,但没有具体说明应使用哪种药物以及在何种条件下使用。没有明确的报道比较基于感染源的DIC治疗的结果。本研究首次阐明了感染源对DIC预后的差异,并比较了DIC治疗选择对预后的影响。患者和方法:这项单中心、回顾性、非随机队列研究纳入了411例确诊为脓毒症相关DIC的患者,这些患者开始接受DIC治疗。重组血栓调节素(rTM)制备和抗凝血酶(AT)替代治疗是DIC的治疗方法。将患者分为五组,确定为治疗的主要感染源:肠相关感染、胆道感染、呼吸道感染、尿路感染和导管相关血流感染(CRBSIs)。除了DIC治疗的差异外,考虑到感染源的背景相互作用的影响,我们评估了可能影响死亡率的以下三个协变量:血清白蛋白浓度、APACHE-II评分和血液抗凝血酶活性。使用Cox比例风险模型来评估协变量之间的相关性,并比较它们对60天生存率的影响。结果:DIC药物选择结果的单因素分析显示,rTM组胆道感染(P = 0.002)和CRBSI (P = 0.021)的生存率具有统计学意义。然而,与其他协变量的多变量分析显示,AT替代治疗对呼吸道感染具有统计学上的有效性(风险比,0.353;P = 0.027)。结论:我们的研究表明严重脓毒症合并DIC的发病机制因感染源的不同而不同,在制定治疗策略时应考虑感染源的不同。特别是,基于感染源的抗dic药物选择性的重要性得到了证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prognostic Impact of Therapeutic Agents for Septic-Associated Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation According to Different Sources of Infection.

Purpose: Sepsis can be caused by various infectious sources; however, treatment strategies for secondary disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) differ between countries. The Japanese sepsis guidelines recommend the use of two drugs for DIC but do not specify which drugs should be used and under which conditions. No clear reports have compared the outcomes of DIC treatments based on the source of infection. This is the first study to clarify the difference in prognosis by the source of infection and compare the effect of the treatment of choice for DIC on prognosis.

Patients and methods: This single-center, retrospective, nonrandomized cohort study included 411 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of sepsis-associated DIC who were initiated on DIC therapies. Recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM) preparation and antithrombin (AT) replacement therapy were the DIC therapies used. The patients were divided into five groups determined to be the primary source of infection for treatment: intestine-related, biliary tract, respiratory tract, urinary tract, and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). In addition to differences in DIC treatment, we evaluated the following three covariates that may influence mortality, considering the influence of background interactions at the infection source: serum albumin concentration, APACHE-II score, and blood antithrombin activity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between the covariates and compare their effect on 60-day survival.

Results: Univariate analysis of the DIC drug choice results showed that survival was statistically significantly higher in the rTM arm for biliary tract infections (P = 0.002) and CRBSI (P = 0.021). However, multivariate analysis with other covariates showed that AT replacement therapy was statistically effective for respiratory tract infections (hazard ratio, 0.353; P = 0.027).

Conclusion: Our study showed that the pathogenesis of severe sepsis with DIC differs depending on the source of infection which should be considered when developing treatment strategies. Particularly, the importance of anti-DIC drug selectivity based on the source of infection was confirmed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信