摘要
目的观察乌司他丁注射液、注射用生长抑素联合血必净注射液治疗急性胰腺炎(AP)患者的临床疗效,及其对血清肝素结合蛋白(HBP)、白细胞介素6(IL-6)、降钙素原(PCT)水平的影响。方法将AP患者随机分为对照组与试验组。在常规对症治疗的基础上,对照组给予乌司他丁2.0×10^(5)U,静脉滴注,tid,生长抑素6 mg静脉泵入,tid。试验组在对照组治疗的基础上,联合血必净静脉注射治疗,qd,每次100 mL。2组患者均连续治疗10 d。对比2组患者的临床疗效、血清学指标(HBP、IL-6、PCT)、血清淀粉酶(AMS)和尿淀粉酶(UAMY)水平、临床症状缓解时间,以及药物不良反应的发生情况。结果试验过程中无脱落,最终试验组和对照组分别纳入30例。治疗后,试验组和对照组的总有效率分别为96.67%和73.33%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,试验组和对照组的HBP分别为(20.17±5.99)和(31.26±6.21)μg·L^(-1),IL-6分别为(71.02±9.27)和(83.10±10.84)pg·mL^(-1),PCT分别为(0.62±0.20)和(0.88±0.23)ng·mL^(-1),AMS分别为(181.26±17.60)和(235.18±24.61)U·L^(-1),UAMY分别为(861.28±25.59)和(946.51±25.34)U·L^(-1),差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后,试验组和对照组的腹痛恢复正常时间分别为(3.22±0.83)和(5.12±1.23)d,恶心/呕吐恢复正常时间分别为(3.18±0.55)和(5.18±1.47)d,腹膜刺激征恢复正常时间分别为(1.77±0.60)和(4.13±0.58)d,血淀粉酶恢复正常时间分别为(4.15±0.28)和(5.66±1.21)d,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。对照组中有2例出现颜面潮红、1例恶心,总药物不良反应发生率为10.00%(3例/30例);对照组中1例出现恶心,总药物不良反应发生率为3.33%(1例/30例),2组的总药物不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论乌司他丁注射液、注射用生长抑素联合血必净注射液治疗AP患者的临床疗效确切,可降低HBP、IL-6、PCT水平,控制机体炎症反应,从而改善患者临床�
Objective To observe the effect of ulinastatin,somatostatin and Xuebijing in the treatment of acute pancreatitis(AP)and their influence on the levels of serum heparin-binding protein(HBP),interleukin-6(IL-6)and procalcitonin(PCT).Methods AP patients were randomly divided into control group and treatment group.On the basis of conventional symptomatic treatment,the control group was given ulinastatin 2.0×10^(5) U,intravenous drip,tid,somatostatin 6 mg intravenous infusion,tid.The treatment group was treated with Xuebijing intravenous injection on the basis of the control group,qd,100 mL each time.Both groups were treated for 10 d.The clinical effect,serological indexes,serum amylase(AMS)and urine amylase(UAMY)levels,clinical symptom relief time and adverse drug reactions were compared between the two groups.Results There was no shedding during the trial.Finally,30 cases were included in the treatment group and the control group,respectively.The total effective rates of the treatment group and the control group were 96.67%and 73.33%,respectively,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).After treatment,the HBP of the treatment group and the control group were(20.17±5.99)and(31.26±6.21)μg·L^(-1);IL-6 were(71.02±9.27)and(83.10±10.84)pg·mL^(-1);PCT were(0.62±0.20)and(0.88±0.23)ng·mL^(-1);AMS were(181.26±17.60)and(235.18±24.61)U·L^(-1);UAMY were(861.28±25.59)and(946.51±25.34)U·L^(-1),respectively,and the difference was statistically significant(all P<0.05).After treatment,the recovery time of abdominal pain in the treatment group and the control group was(3.22±0.83)and(5.12±1.23)d;the recovery time of nausea/vomiting was(3.18±0.55)and(5.18±1.47)d;the recovery time of peritoneal irritation was(1.77±0.60)and(4.13±0.58)d,and the recovery time of blood amylase was(4.15±0.28)and(5.66±1.21)d,the differences were statistically significant(all P<0.05).In the control group,2 cases had facial flushing and 1 case had nausea,and total adverse drug reaction incidence was 10.00%(3 cases/30 case
作者
谢欣城
吴博
李晓
陈数荣
周丹
周毅骏
XIE Xin-cheng;WU Bo;LI Xiao;CHEN Su-rong;ZHOU Dan;ZHOU Yi-jun(Department of Gastroenterology,Hangzhou Xixi Hospital,Hangzhou 310023,Zhejiang Province,China)
出处
《中国临床药理学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2023年第15期2135-2139,共5页
The Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
基金
浙江省医药卫生科技计划基金资助项目(2021KY938)。
