严重烧伤患者早期肠内营养的治疗效果
Effects of early enteral nutrition in the treatment of patients with severe burns
目的 探讨早期肠内营养(EEN)在严重烧伤患者治疗中的价值. 方法 回顾性分析3家笔者单位2014年8-9月收治的共52例严重烧伤患者病历资料,根据肠内营养启动时间分为EEN组28例与非EEN组24例.在常规治疗基础上,EEN组患者于伤后3d内进行肠内营养,非EEN组患者于伤后3d后进行肠内营养.比较2组患者伤后1、2、3、4、5、6、7、14、21、28 d肠内营养量/摄入总能量比值、肠外营养量/摄入总能量比值、摄入总能量/目标能量比值,伤后1、3、7、14、28 d前白蛋白、血肌酐、血尿素氮、总胆红素、直接胆红素水平以及急性生理与慢性健康评估Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分,伤后28 d内首次手术时间、手术次数以及发生腹胀、腹泻、呕吐、误吸、导管堵塞、低血糖次数.对数据行x 2检验、t检验、Wilcoxon秩和检验,并进行Bonferroni校正. 结果 (1)EEN组患者伤后1d肠外营养量/摄入总能量比值明显低于非EEN组(Z=2.078,p<0.05),伤后2、3d肠内营养量/摄入总能量比值及摄入总能量/目标能量比值明显高于非EEN组(Z=5.766、6.404,t=4.907、6.378,P<0.01),伤后4、5、6、7d摄入总能量/目标能量比值明显低于非EEN组(t=4.635、2.547、3.751、5.373,P<0.05或P<0.01).EEN组患者伤后2、4、5、14、21、28 d肠内营养量/摄入总能量比值明显高于组内肠外营养量/摄入总能量比值(Z =5.326、2.046、2.129、4.118、3.174、3.963,P<0.05或P<0.01);非EEN组患者伤后1、2、3d肠内营养量/摄入总能量比值明显低于组内肠外营养量/摄入总能量比值(Z =2.591、2.591、3.293,P<0.05或P<0.01),伤后14、21、28 d肠内营养量/摄入总能量比值明显高于组内肠外营养量/摄入总能量比值(Z =2.529、3.173、3.133,P <0.05或P<0.01).(2)2组患者伤后1、3、7、14d前白蛋白水平相近(t=1.983、0.093、0.832、1.475,P>0.05);伤后28 d,EEN组患者前白蛋白水平明显高于非EEN组(t=3.163,P<0.05).2组患者伤后各时间点血肌酐、血尿素氮、总胆红素、直接胆红素水平相近(Z =1.340、0.547、0.245、0.387、0.009、1.170、0.340、1.491、0.274、1.953、0.527、0.789、0.474、1.156、0.482、0.268、0.190、0.116、1.194、0.431,P>0.05).(3)EEN组患者伤后1、3 d APACHEⅡ评分分别为(22.5±3.1)、(15.6±3.8)分,与非EEN组的(23.6 ±3.0)、(17.6±4.2)分相近(t=1.352、1.733,P>0.05);EEN组患者伤后7、14、28 d APACHEⅡ评分分别为(13.6±3.6)、(13.8±4.1)、(15.5±4.1)分,明显低于非EEN组的(18.5±3.9)、(19.5±4.2)、(20.8±3.8)分(t=4.677、4.843、4.792,P<0.05).(4)伤后28 d内,2组患者首次手术时间、手术次数以及发生腹胀、腹泻、呕吐、误吸、导管堵塞、低血糖次数相近(t=0.684、0.782,Z=0.161、1.751、0.525、0.764、0.190、0.199,P>0.05).结论 在严重烧伤治疗中进行EEN能够使患者在伤后早期获得更高的能量摄入,改善患者APACHEⅡ评分,增加其伤后28 d前白蛋白水平,同时不增加不良反应发生次数.
更多Objective To investigate the effects of early enteral nutrition (EEN) in the treatment of patients with severe burns.Methods Medical records of 52 patients with severe burns hospitalized in the three affiliations of authors from August to September in 2014 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into EEN group (n =28) and non-early enteral nutrition (NEEN) group (n =24) according to the initiation time of enteral nutrition.On the basis of routine treatment,enteral nutrition was given to patients in group EEN within post injury day (POD) 3,while enteral nutrition was given to patients in group NEEN after POD 3.The following items were compared between patients of the two groups,such as the ratio of enteral nutrition intake to total energy intake,the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake,the ratio of total energy intake to energy target on POD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,14,21,and 28,the levels of prealbumin,serum creatinine,blood urea nitrogen,total bilirubin,direct bilirubin,and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) score on POD 1,3,7,14,and 28,the first operation time,the number of operations,and the frequencies of abdominal distension,diarrhea,vomiting,aspiration,catheter blockage,and low blood sugar within POD 28.Data were processed withx 2 test,t test,Wilcoxon rank sum test,and Bonferroni correction.Results (1) The ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake of patients in group EEN on POD 1 was obviously lower than that in group NEEN (Z =2.078,P <0.05).The ratio of enteral nutrition intake to total energy intake and the ratio of total energy intake to energy target of patients in group EEN on POD 2 and 3 were obviously higher than those in group NEEN (Z =5.766,6.404,t =4.907,6.378,P < 0.01).The ratio of total energy intake to energy target of patients in group EEN was obviously lower than that in group NEEN on POD 4,5,6,and 7 (t =4.635,2.547,3.751,5.373,P <0.05 orP <0.01).On POD 2,4,5,14,21,and 28,the ratio ofenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake of patients in group EEN was obviously higher than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z =5.326,2.046,2.129,4.118,3.174,3.963,P <0.05 or P < 0.01).In group NEEN,the ratio of enteral nutrition to total energy intake of patients on POD 1,2,and 3 was obviously lower than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z =2.591,2.591,3.293,P <0.05 or P <0.01),while the ratio of enteral nutrition to total energy intake of patients on POD 14,21,28 was obviously higher than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z =2.529,3.173,3.133,P <0.05 orP <0.01).(2) The prealbuminlevels of patients in the two groups were close on POD 1,3,7,and 14 (t =1.983,0.093,0.832,1.475,P > 0.05).On POD 28,the prealbumin level of patients in group EEN was obviously high-er than that in group NEEN (t =3.163,P <0.05).The levels of serum creatinine,blood urea nitrogen,total bilirubin,and direct bilirubin of patients in the two groups at all time points post injury were close (Z =1.340,0.547,0.245,0.387,0.009,1.170,0.340,1.491,0.274,1.953,0.527,0.789,0.474,1.156,0.482,0.268,0.190,0.116,1.194,0.431,P >0.05).(3) The APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in group EEN were (22.5 ± 3.1) and (15.6 ± 3.8) points respectively on POD 1 and 3,which were close to (23.6±3.0) and (17.6±4.2) points of patients in group NEEN (t =1.352,1.733,P >0.05).The APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in group EEN on POD 7,14,and 28 were (13.6 ± 3.6),(13.8±4.1),and (15.5±4.1) points,respectively,which were obviously lower than (18.5 ±3.9),(19.5 ±4.2) and (20.8 ±3.8) points of patients in group NEEN (t =4.677,4.843,4.792,P <0.05).(4) Within POD 28,the time of the first operation,the number of operations,and the frequencies of abdominal distension,diarrhea,vomiting,aspiration,catheter blockage and hypoglycemia were similar between patients of the two groups (t =0.684,0.782,Z =0.161,1.751,0.525,0.764,0.190,0.199,P > 0.05).Conclusions EEN in the treatment of patients with severe burns potentially increases the energy intake at early stage and improves APACHE Ⅱ score and prealbumin level on POD 28,without increasing frequencies of adverse reactions.
More- 浏览:542
- 被引:13
- 下载:409
相似文献
- 中文期刊
- 外文期刊
- 学位论文
- 会议论文