慢加急性肝衰竭合并细菌感染患者的临床特征及早期预警指标筛选
DOI: 10.12449/JCH240419
Clinical features and early warning indicators of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and bacterial infection
-
摘要:
目的 探讨慢加急性肝衰竭(ACLF)合并细菌感染患者的临床特征以及与多重耐药菌感染相关的早期预警指标。 方法 回顾性选取2010年1月1日—2021年12月31日于空军军医大学第二附属医院就诊的ACLF合并细菌感染患者130例,根据药敏结果分为多重耐药菌感染组(n=80)与非多重耐药菌感染组(n=50)。比较两组患者一般资料和实验室检查结果,筛选与多重耐药菌感染相关的早期预警指标。符合正态分布且方差齐的计量资料两组间比较采用Student-t检验;不符合正态分布或方差不齐的计量资料两组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。计数资料两组间比较采用χ2检验或Fisher精确概率法。采用二元Logistic回归和受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)评估预警指标的预测价值。 结果 130例ACLF合并细菌感染的患者中,痰液(27.7%)是最常见检出标本,其后依次为血液(24.6%)、尿液(18.5%)、腹水(17.7%)等。细菌感染以革兰阴性菌为主(58.5%)。在所有细菌中,大肠埃希菌(18.5%)、肺炎克雷伯菌(14.6%)和屎肠球菌(13.8%)是最常见病原体。革兰阳性菌对红霉素(72.2%)、青霉素(57.4%)、氨苄青霉素(55.6%)、环丙沙星(53.7%)等抗菌药物的耐药率较高,而革兰阴性菌对氨苄青霉素(73.3%)、头孢唑林(50.0%)、头孢吡肟(47.4%)等抗菌药物的耐药率较高。ACLF合并细菌感染患者的多重耐药菌感染率(61.5%)较高。通过比较多重耐药和非多重耐药菌感染患者的临床资料发现,多重耐药菌感染患者的ALT(Z=2.089,P=0.037)、AST(Z=2.063,P=0.039)、WBC(Z=2.207,P=0.027)、单核细胞计数(Z=4.413,P<0.001)等指标高于非多重耐药患者。二元Logistic回归分析显示,单核细胞计数是多重耐药菌感染的独立危险因素(OR=7.120,95%CI:2.478~20.456,P<0.001),预测ACLF合并多重耐药菌感染的ROC曲线下面积为0.686(0.597~0.776)(P<0.001),最佳截断值为0.50×109/L,灵敏度为0.725,特异度为0.400。 结论 ACLF合并细菌感染以革兰阴性菌感染为主,以大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌为常见病原体,临床多重耐药率高。单核细胞计数增高可作为区分多重耐药菌和非多重耐药菌感染的早期预警指标。 Abstract:Objective To investigate the clinical features of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and bacterial infection and early warning indicators associated with multidrug-resistant infections. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for 130 patients with ACLF and bacterial infection who attended The Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021, and according to the drug susceptibility results, the patients were divided into multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infection group with 80 patients and non-MDR bacterial infection group with 50 patients. General information and laboratory examination results were compared between the two groups to screen for the early warning indicators associated with MDR bacterial infection. The Student’s t-test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data with homogeneity of variance between two groups, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data or continuous data with heterogeneity of variance between two groups; the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The binary logistic regression analysis and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to assess the predictive value of early warning indicators. Results Among the 130 patients with ACLF and bacterial infection, sputum (27.7%) was the most common specimen for detection, followed by blood (24.6%), urine (18.5%), and ascites (17.7%). Bacterial infections were dominated by Gram-negative bacteria (58.5%). Of all bacteria, Escherichia coli (18.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (14.6%), and Enterococcus faecium (13.8%) were the most common pathogens. Gram-positive bacteria had a high resistance rate to the antibacterial drugs such as erythromycin (72.2%), penicillin (57.4%), ampicillin (55.6%), and ciprofloxacin (53.7%), while Gram-negative bacteria had a high resistance rate to the antibacterial drugs such as ampicillin (73.3%), cefazolin (50.0%), and cefepime (47.4%). The patients with ACLF and bacterial infection had a relatively high rate of MDR bacterial infection (61.5%). Comparison of clinical data between the two groups showed that compared with the patients with non-MDR bacterial infection, the patients with MDR bacterial infection had significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferase (Z=2.089, P=0.037), aspartate aminotransferase (Z=2.063, P=0.039), white blood cell count (Z=2.207, P=0.027), and monocyte count (Z=4.413, P<0.001). The binary logistic regression analysis showed that monocyte count was an independent risk factor for MDR bacterial infection (odds ratio=7.120, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.478 — 20.456,P<0.001) and had an area under the ROC curve of 0.686 (95%CI: 0.597 — 0.776) in predicting ACLF with MDR bacterial infection(P<0.001), with the optimal cut-off value of 0.50×109/L, a sensitivity of 0.725, and a specificity of 0.400. Conclusion ACLF combined with bacterial infections is mainly caused by Gram-negative bacteria, with the common pathogens of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae and a relatively high MDR rate in clinical practice. An increase in monocyte count can be used as an early warning indicator to distinguish MDR bacterial infection from non-MDR bacterial infection. -
表 1 ACLF合并细菌感染患者标本检出细菌分布
Table 1. Distribution of bacteria detected in specimens of patients with ACLF and bacterial infection
细菌种类 痰液(例) 血液(例) 尿液(例) 腹水(例) 胆汁(例) 骨髓(例) 合计[例(%)] 革兰阳性菌 5 14 18 10 6 1 54(41.5) 屎肠球菌 0 1 14 2 1 0 18(13.8) 人葡萄球菌 0 3 0 0 0 1 4(3.1) 耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌 1 1 1 0 1 0 4(3.1) 溶血葡萄球菌 2 0 0 0 1 0 3(2.3) 金黄色葡萄球菌 0 2 1 0 0 0 3(2.3) 肺炎链球菌 0 1 0 0 0 0 1(0.8) 其他 2 6 2 8 3 0 21(16.2) 革兰阴性菌 31 18 6 13 8 0 76(58.5) 大肠埃希菌 1 9 5 7 2 0 24(18.5) 肺炎克雷伯菌 10 6 1 2 0 0 19(14.6) 嗜麦芽黄单胞菌 4 0 0 1 0 0 5(3.8) 鲍曼/溶血不动杆菌 4 0 0 0 1 0 5(3.8) 流感嗜血杆菌 4 0 0 0 0 0 4(3.1) 阴沟肠杆菌 1 0 0 0 2 0 3(2.3) 其他 7 3 0 3 3 0 16(12.3) 表 2 ACLF合并细菌感染患者多重耐药菌与非多重耐药菌耐药情况比较
Table 2. Comparison of MDR and non-MDR bacterial resistance of patients with ACLF and bacterial infection
药物 合计(n=130) 多重耐药组(n=80) 非多重耐药组(n=50) 统计值 P值 氨苄青霉素[例(%)] 86(66.2) 61(76.3) 25(50.0) χ2=9.469 0.002 环丙沙星[例(%)] 64(49.2) 59(73.8) 5(10.0) χ2=50.031 <0.001 庆大霉素[例(%)] 57(43.8) 50(62.5) 7(14.0) χ2=29.396 <0.001 甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲噁唑[例(%)] 52(40.0) 51(63.8) 1(2.0) χ2=46.346 <0.001 左旋氧氟沙星[例(%)] 51(39.2) 47(58.8) 4(8.0) χ2=31.147 <0.001 头孢唑林[例(%)] 42(32.3) 32(40.0) 10(20.0) χ2=5.628 0.018 头孢曲松[例(%)] 40(30.8) 32(40.0) 8(16.0) χ2=8.320 0.004 红霉素[例(%)] 39(30.0) 34(42.5) 5(10.0) χ2=15.476 <0.001 头孢吡肟[例(%)] 36(27.7) 33(41.3) 3(6.0) χ2=17.374 <0.001 四环素[例(%)] 34(26.2) 33(41.3) 1(2.0) χ2=22.553 <0.001 青霉素[例(%)] 33(25.4) 27(33.8) 6(12.0) χ2=7.685 0.006 哌拉西林[例(%)] 25(19.2) 23(28.8) 2(4.0) χ2=10.593 0.001 绿林可霉素[例(%)] 17(13.1) 17(21.3) 0(0.0) <0.0011) 亚胺培南[例(%)] 17(13.1) 9(11.3) 8(16.0) χ2=0.611 0.435 美罗培南[例(%)] 15(11.5) 9(11.3) 6(12.0) χ2=0.017 0.896 利福平[例(%)] 15(11.5) 15(18.8) 0(0.0) <0.0011) 厄他培南[例(%)] 11(8.5) 6(7.5) 5(10.0) χ2=0.248 0.618 链霉素[例(%)] 10(7.7) 10(12.5) 0(0.0) 0.0071) 万古霉素[例(%)] 4(3.1) 3(3.8) 1(2.0) χ2=0.002 0.968 注:1)Fisher检验。 表 3 ACLF合并革兰阳性菌感染患者多重耐药菌与非多重耐药菌耐药情况比较
Table 3. Comparison of MDR and non-MDR bacterial resistance of patients with ACLF and gram-positive bacterial infection
药物 合计(n=54) 多重耐药组(n=37) 非多重耐药组(n=17) 统计值 P值 红霉素[例(%)] 39(72.2) 34(91.9) 5(29.4) χ2=22.666 <0.001 青霉素[例(%)] 31(57.4) 27(73.0) 4(23.5) χ2=9.712 0.002 氨苄青霉素[例(%)] 30(55.6) 25(67.6) 5(29.4) χ2=6.868 0.009 环丙沙星[例(%)] 29(53.7) 27(73.0) 2(11.8) χ2=15.176 <0.001 左旋氧氟沙星[例(%)] 22(40.7) 20(54.1) 2(11.8) χ2=6.966 0.008 庆大霉素[例(%)] 22(40.7) 22(59.5) 0(0.0) <0.0011) 头孢曲松[例(%)] 20(37.0) 18(48.6) 2(11.8) χ2=5.306 0.021 甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲噁唑[例(%)] 18(33.3) 17(45.9) 1(5.9) χ2=6.707 0.010 绿林可霉素[例(%)] 17(31.5) 17(45.9) 0(0.0) <0.0011) 利福平[例(%)] 15(27.8) 15(40.5) 0(0.0) 0.0021) 四环素[例(%)] 13(24.1) 13(35.1) 0(0.0) 0.0011) 链霉素[例(%)] 10(18.5) 10(27.0) 0(0.0) 0.0461) 万古霉素[例(%)] 4(7.4) 3(8.1) 1(5.9) χ2=0.000 1.000 亚胺培南[例(%)] 2(3.7) 1(2.7) 1(5.9) χ2=0.000 1.000 美罗培南[例(%)] 1(1.9) 1(2.7) 0(0.0) 1.0001) 注:1)Fisher检验。 表 4 ACLF合并革兰阴性菌感染患者多重耐药菌与非多重耐药菌耐药情况比较
Table 4. Comparison of MDR and non-MDR bacterial resistance of patients with ACLF and gram-negative bacterial infection
药物 合计(n=76) 多重耐药组(n=43) 非多重耐药组(n=33) 统计值 P值 氨苄青霉素[例(%)] 56(73.7) 36(83.7) 20(60.6) χ2=5.145 0.023 头孢唑林[例(%)] 38(50.0) 30(69.8) 8(24.2) χ2=15.479 <0.001 头孢吡肟[例(%)] 36(47.4) 33(76.7) 3(9.1) χ2=31.618 <0.001 头孢他啶[例(%)] 35(46.1) 25(58.1) 10(30.3) χ2=5.823 0.016 环丙沙星[例(%)] 35(46.1) 32(74.4) 3(9.1) χ2=29.497 <0.001 庆大霉素[例(%)] 35(46.1) 28(65.1) 7(21.2) χ2=14.486 <0.001 甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲噁唑[例(%)] 34(44.7) 34(79.1) 0(0.0) <0.0011) 左旋氧氟沙星[例(%)] 29(38.2) 27(62.8) 2(6.1) χ2=23.117 <0.001 哌拉西林[例(%)] 25(32.9) 23(53.5) 2(6.1) χ2=16.938 <0.001 四环素[例(%)] 21(27.6) 20(46.5) 1(3.0) χ2=15.546 <0.001 头孢呋辛[例(%)] 17(22.4) 14(32.6) 3(9.1) χ2=4.647 0.031 亚胺培南[例(%)] 15(19.7) 8(18.6) 7(21.2) χ2=0.080 0.777 美罗培南[例(%)] 14(18.4) 8(18.6) 6(18.2) χ2=0.002 0.962 厄他培南[例(%)] 11(14.5) 6(14.0) 5(15.2) χ2=0.022 0.883 注:1)Fisher检验。 表 5 多重耐药患者与非多重耐药患者临床资料比较
Table 5. Comparison of clinical data of patients with MDR and non-MDR bacterial infection
项目 全部(n=130) 多重耐药组(n=80) 非多重耐药组(n=50) 统计值 P值 年龄(岁) 47.70±14.92 46.68±15.87 49.34±13.25 t=0.991 0.324 性别[例(%)] χ2=0.309 0.578 女 61(46.9) 36(45.0) 25(50.0) 男 69(53.1) 44(55.0) 25(50.0) 肝病病因[例(%)] χ2=1.571 0.210 HBV感染 89(68.5) 58(72.5) 31(62.0) 非HBV感染 41(31.5) 22(27.5) 19(38.0) 实验室检查指标 Alb(g/L) 28.55(26.08~32.70) 28.90(25.60~32.70) 28.00(26.40~31.35) Z=0.467 0.641 ALT(U/L) 82.50(38.00~265.00) 120.00(57.25~582.50) 78.50(43.00~176.00) Z=2.089 0.037 AST(U/L) 111.00(50.00~286.50) 260.00(97.50~744.00) 208.00(96.00~484.00) Z=2.063 0.039 TBil(μmol/L) 307.31±146.96 313.42±155.32 297.54±133.45 t=0.598 0.551 血氨(μmol/L) 54.80(35.30~78.70) 54.70(33.10~86.20) 54.80(42.90~72.30) Z=0.239 0.811 GGT(U/L) 77.00(38.50~168.00) 83.00(44.00~150.00) 66.50(28.00~172.75) Z=0.399 0.690 ALP(U/L) 129.00(88.00~174.50) 131.00(84.00~170.00) 121.00(94.00~194.00) Z=0.401 0.688 肌酐(μmol/L) 63.85(50.00~122.15) 64.00(51.00~157.90) 63.85(47.18~78.20) Z=0.476 0.634 血尿素氮(mmol/L) 5.88(3.87~11.23) 5.91(3.42~15.25) 5.79(4.06~8.87) Z=0.584 0.559 WBC(×109/L) 7.95(4.63~12.87) 8.43(5.60~14.45) 7.11(3.85~11.02) Z=2.207 0.027 淋巴细胞计数(×109/L) 0.86(0.48~1.36) 1.14(0.56~1.60) 0.73(0.48~1.25) Z=2.106 0.035 单核细胞计数(×109/L) 0.67±0.48 0.79±0.54 0.47±0.29 t=4.413 <0.001 中性粒细胞计数(×109/L) 6.84(3.20~10.98) 7.22(4.09~12.09) 4.84(2.89~9.56) Z=1.871 0.061 Hb(g/L) 109.37±24.14 112.88±23.38 103.76±24.52 t=2.122 0.036 PLT(×109/L) 80.00(43.00~147.00) 92.00(42.25~153.50) 63.00(43.00~144.00) Z=0.878 0.380 红细胞压积(%) 31.95±6.76 32.72±6.52 30.72±7.01 t=1.651 0.101 PT(s) 20.55(17.28~26.03) 21.05(17.20~26.55) 19.95(17.55~24.93) Z=0.275 0.783 APTT(s) 48.00(38.90~62.78) 48.65(40.43~66.33) 47.85(36.88~58.10) Z=1.211 0.226 TT(s) 21.60(19.40~24.60) 22.00(19.50~25.40) 20.85(18.38~24.00) Z=1.511 0.131 Fib(g/L) 1.44(1.02~2.24) 1.53(1.02~2.24) 1.42(1.01~2.37) Z=0.230 0.818 PTA(%) 39.80(28.48~48.03) 38.35(27.45~48.40) 40.75(28.78~47.18) Z=0.495 0.620 INR 1.77(1.43~2.32) 1.80(1.42~2.38) 1.71(1.49~2.18) Z=0.476 0.634 FDP(μg/mL) 5.94(2.75~14.61) 6.22(2.65~11.60) 5.94(2.73~20.26) Z=0.639 0.523 D-D(μg/mL) 1.82(0.69~6.54) 1.57(0.64~5.74) 2.32(0.77~9.44) Z=1.180 0.238 PCT(ng/mL) 0.89(0.28~2.54) 0.96(0.32~2.60) 0.66(0.20~1.60) Z=1.104 0.270 CRP(mg/L) 18.80(5.73~36.20) 18.24(4.08~30.35) 19.50(6.13~40.00) Z=0.910 0.363 IL-6(pg/mL) 71.35(17.24~228.60) 74.43(11.43~308.00) 51.33(20.36~140.90) Z=0.072 0.958 注:APTT:活化部分凝血活酶时间;TT:凝血酶时间;Fib:纤维蛋白原;PTA:凝血酶原活动度;INR:国际标准化比值;FDP:纤维蛋白降解产物;D-D:D-二聚体;PCT:降钙素原。 -
[1] Liver Failure and Artificial Liver Group, Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases, Chinese Medical Association; Severe Liver Disease and Artificial Liver Group, Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of liver failure(2018)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2019, 35( 1): 38- 44. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.007.中华医学会感染病学分会肝衰竭与人工肝学组, 中华医学会肝病学分会重型肝病与人工肝学组. 肝衰竭诊治指南(2018年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2019, 35( 1): 38- 44. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.007. [2] BI ZH, WANG LX, LIAN JQ. Definition, prognostic assessment, and advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2022, 38( 7): 1671- 1676. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.07.041.毕占虎, 王临旭, 连建奇. 慢加急性肝衰竭的定义、预后评估及诊治进展[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2022, 38( 7): 1671- 1676. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.07.041. [3] FAN Q, LI Z. Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Organ Transplantation, 2022, 13( 3): 333- 337. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2022.03.008.范祺, 李照. 慢加急性肝衰竭的肝移植治疗[J]. 器官移植, 2022, 13( 3): 333- 337. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2022.03.008. [4] MÜCKE MM, RUMYANTSEVA T, MÜCKE VT, et al. Bacterial infection-triggered acute-on-chronic liver failure is associated with increased mortality[J]. Liver Int, 2018, 38( 4): 645- 653. DOI: 10.1111/liv.13568. [5] FERNÁNDEZ J, ACEVEDO J, WIEST R, et al. Bacterial and fungal infections in acute-on-chronic liver failure: Prevalence, characteristics and impact on prognosis[J]. Gut, 2018, 67( 10): 1870- 1880. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314240. [6] YANG L, WU T, LI J, et al. Bacterial infections in acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Semin Liver Dis, 2018, 38( 2): 121- 133. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1657751. [7] ZHANG B, DILIHUMAER ZYE, ZHANG SY, et al. Progress on pathogenesis and medical treatment of hepatitis B virus-related chronic and acute liver failure[J/OL]. Chin J Liver Dis: Electron Version, 2023, 15( 1): 28- 33. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7380.2023.01.005.张斌, 迪丽胡玛尔·扎依尔, 张诗雨, 等. 乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭发病机制及治疗进展[J/OL]. 中国肝脏病杂志(电子版), 2023, 15( 1): 28- 33. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7380.2023.01.005. [8] SARIN SK, CHOUDHURY A, SHARMA MK, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure: Consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver(APASL): An update[J]. Hepatol Int, 2019, 13( 4): 353- 390. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-019-09946-3. [9] HUANG X, DENG ZD, NI YX, et al. Chinese experts' consensus on prevention and control of multidrug resistance organism healthcare-associated infection[J]. Chin J Infect Contr, 2015, 14( 1): 1- 9. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9638.2015.01.001.黄勋, 邓子德, 倪语星, 等. 多重耐药菌医院感染预防与控制中国专家共识[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2015, 14( 1): 1- 9. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9638.2015.01.001. [10] Society of Infectious Disease, Chinese Medical Association. Expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of end-stage liver disease complicated with infections(2021 version)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2022, 38( 2): 304- 310. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.02.010.中华医学会感染病学分会. 终末期肝病合并感染诊治专家共识(2021年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2022, 38( 2): 304- 310. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.02.010. [11] Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. Guidelines on the management of ascites and complications in cirrhosis[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2017, 33( 10): 1847- 1863. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2017.10.003.中华医学会肝病学分会. 肝硬化腹水及相关并发症的诊疗指南[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2017, 33( 10): 1847- 1863. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2017.10.003. [12] ZHANG Q, SHI BX, WU L. Characteristics and risk factors of urinary tract infection in patients with HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: A retrospective study[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2022, 101( 28): e29913. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029913. [13] XIE YX, TU B, XU Z, et al. Bacterial distributions and prognosis of bloodstream infections in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7( 1): 11482. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11587-1. [14] LIU XQ, ZHANG XY, YING Y, et al. The role of prophylactic antibiotics in hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure patients at risk of bacterial infection: A retrospective study[J]. Infect Dis Poverty, 2021, 10( 1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40249-021-00830-7. [15] MILOVANOVIC T, PANTIC I, VELICKOVIC J, et al. Bacteremia in patients with liver cirrhosis in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance: Single-center epidemiology[J]. J Infect Dev Ctries, 2021, 15( 12): 1883- 1890. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.14508. [16] TREBICKA J, FERNANDEZ J, PAPP M, et al. PREDICT identifies precipitating events associated with the clinical course of acutely decompensated cirrhosis[J]. J Hepatol, 2021, 74( 5): 1097- 1108. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.019. [17] FERNÁNDEZ J, PRADO V, TREBICKA J, et al. Multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and with acute-on-chronic liver failure in Europe[J]. J Hepatol, 2019, 70( 3): 398- 411. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.10.027. [18] MAIWALL R, PASUPULETI SSR, CHANDEL SS, et al. Co-orchestration of acute kidney injury and non-kidney organ failures in critically ill patients with cirrhosis[J]. Liver Int, 2021, 41( 6): 1358- 1369. DOI: 10.1111/liv.14809. [19] LU BT, HOU YR, HU YQ, et al. Clinical analysis of serum lactate dehydrogenase, interleukin-6, procalcitonin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels in evaluating the prognosis of multiple myeloma patients with bacterial infection[J/CD]. Chin J Exp Clin Infect Dis(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17( 03): 187- 193. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2023.03.007.路炳通, 侯英荣, 胡永强, 等. 血清乳酸脱氢酶、白细胞介素6、降钙素原和超敏C反应蛋白水平变化在多发性骨髓瘤合并细菌感染者预后中的评估价值[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17( 3): 187- 193. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2023.03.007.
计量
- 文章访问数: 285
- HTML全文浏览量: 99
- PDF下载量: 58
- 被引次数: 0