中国肝脏病杂志(电子版)

位置：首页 >> 期刊文章

慢性乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝功能衰竭患者肾上腺功能不全的临床观察

作者：许彪张莹陈婧牟劲松王永刚李克

单位：解放军第302医院重症医学中心北京 100039

关键词：肝炎乙型慢性肝功能衰竭慢加急性肾上腺功能不全

分类号：

出版年,卷(期):页码：2016,8(3):53-58

摘要：

摘要：目的研究慢性乙型肝炎慢加急性肝功能衰竭（ACLF）中肾上腺功能不全的发生率及肾上腺功
能不全与疾病严重程度和预后的相关性。方法为单中心的观察性研究，纳入2013年3月至2014年11月入
住中国人民解放军第三〇二医院的慢性乙型肝炎ACLF患者，排除合并感染及半年内应用皮质激素的患
者。根据晨起皮质醇水平将患者分为肾上腺功能不全慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组（皮质醇＜ 276 nmol/L）和肾
上腺功能正常慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组（皮质醇≥ 276 nmol/L），比较两组患者的血流动力学（SBP、
ΔSBP、DBP、ΔDBP、HR和UO）、肝肾功能（ALT、AST、ALB、CHE、Scr和BUN）、凝血功能
（PTA和INR）、MELD评分及预后。结果共纳入54例慢性乙型肝炎ACLF患者，其中肾上腺功能不
全者27例（50%）。ACLF早期、中期和晚期肾上腺功能不全者分别为11例（55%）、13例（52%）
和3例（33.3%），各期患者肾上腺功能不全的患病率差异无统计学意义（χ 2 = 1.231，P = 0.666）。
肾上腺功能不全慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组与肾上腺功能正常慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组相比，血流动力学指标
（SBP、ΔSBP、DBP、ΔDBP、HR和UO）无统计学差异（P均＞ 0.05），生物化学指标中，肾上腺功
能不全慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组较肾上腺功能正常慢性乙型肝炎ACLF组的TBil [（314.5 ± 146.0）µmol/L vs
（405.3 ± 123.1）µmol/L]和ALB [（28.2 ± 2.8）g/L vs （30.3 ± 3.1）g/L]降低，差异有统计学意义
（P = 0.011、0.017），其他指标（ALT、AST、CHE、PTA、INR、Scr、BUN）无统计学差异（P
均＞ 0.05）。在MELD评分[（26.1 ± 6.0 ）分vs（27.7 ± 5.0）分）及预后风险方面（OR = 0.862，
95%CI：0.295～2.513）也无统计学差异（P值分别为0.288和1.000）。结论慢性乙型肝炎ACLF患者
中肾上腺功能不全的发病率为50%，但肾上腺功能不全与血流动力学、肝病严重程度及预后无显著
相关性。因此，以肾上腺功能不全作为慢性乙型肝炎ACLF的预后指标以及对肾上腺功能不全患者补
充肾上腺皮质激素以纠正肾上腺功能不全从而达到改善肝脏功能及预后的设想仍需商榷。

Abstract: Objective To explore the prevalence rate of adrenal insufficiency (AI) in patients with chronic
hepatitis B patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and the relationship between AI and ACLF.
Methods This is a observational single center study. Chronic hepatitis B patients with ACLF without bacterial
infection and steroids use in half a year were enrolled and divided into AI group (serum cortisol ＜ 276 nmol/L)
and non-AI group (serum cortisol ≥ 276 nmol/L) according to the serum cortisol concentration. The indexes
of hemodynamics (SBP, ΔSBP, DBP, ΔDBP, HR and UO), hepatic and renal function (TBil, ALT, AST, ALB,
CHE, Scr and BUN), coagulation function (PTa and INR), MELD score and outcomes between the two
groups were compared. Results Total of 54 cases were enrolled in the trials and 27 cases (50%) of the patients
were with AI. There were 11 cases (55%), 13 cases (52%) and 3 cases (33.3%) in early, middle and later
stage of ACLF, respectively. The prevalence rates of AI among the three stages had no statistically significant

difference（χ 2 = 1.231, P = 0.666）. Between AI group and non-AI group, the indexes of hemodynamics (SBP,
ΔSBP, DBP, ΔDBP, HR and UO) were with no statistically significant difference（P ＞ 0.05）. The levels of
TBil [(314.5 ± 146.0) µmol/L vs (405.3 ± 123.1) µmol/L] and ALB [(28.2 ± 2.8)g/L vs (30.3 ± 3.1) g/L] in
AI group decreased significantly (P = 0.011, 0.017), the difference in other indexes (ALT, AST, CHE, Scr,
BUN, PTa, INR) were not statistically significant. Finally, there was no significant difference in MELD
scores [(26.1 ± 6.0) vs (27.7 ± 5.0)] and prognostic risks (OR = 0.862, 95%CI: 0.295～2.513) between
the two groups (P = 0.288, 1.000). Conclusions The prevalence rate of AI in chronic hepatitis B patients
with ACLF was 50%, and AI in these patients had no relationship with hemodynamics, severe illness and
prognosis, which did not support the hypothesis that chronic hepatitis B patients with ACLF complicated
with AI could benefit in hepatic function and outcome from treatment of AI.

基金项目：

作者简介：

参考文献：

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】