硝酸甘油控制性低中心静脉压技术对腹腔镜肝切除肝癌患者脑代谢指标及脑血氧饱和度的影响
DOI: 10.12449/JCH250313
Effect of the nitroglycerin-controlled low central venous pressure technique on cerebral metabolic markers and cerebral blood oxygen saturation in patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver cancer
-
摘要:
目的 探讨分析硝酸甘油控制性低中心静脉压(CLCVP)技术对腹腔镜肝切除肝癌患者脑代谢指标及脑血氧饱和度的影响,从而降低患者神经系统并发症发生风险。 方法 选择2020年4月—2023年5月在中南大学湘雅医院附属海口医院择期行腹腔镜下肝切除术的肝癌患者105例,随机分为CLCVP组54例、非CLCVP组51例。术中CLCVP组患者采用硝酸甘油CLCVP技术,而非CLCVP组患者采取常规手术处理方式。比较两组患者围手术期相关指标,麻醉诱导前(T0)、麻醉诱导后5 min(T1)、肝实质离断开始后5 min(T2)、肝切除结束后5 min(T3)、手术结束即刻(T4)的血流动力学指标、脑氧代谢情况,比较两组患者手术前后肝功能指标变化,以及不良反应发生情况。计量资料两组间比较采用成组t检验,计数资料两组间比较采用χ2检验,多时间点比较采用重复测量方差分析。 结果 CLCVP组患者术中出血量、术中输液量显著低于非CLCVP组(t值分别为5.408、7.220,P值均<0.05),而两组患者手术时间、麻醉时间、拔管时间、复苏时间以及术中尿量比较,差异无统计学意义(P值均>0.05)。两组患者术中平均动脉压、心率以及中心静脉压均较T0时刻显著降低(P值均<0.05),CLCVP组患者术中T2、T3时刻平均动脉压、中心静脉压显著低于非CLCVP组(P值均<0.05),而心率显著高于非CLCVP组(P值均<0.05)。术中T2~T4时刻两组患者脑动-静脉血氧含量差较T0时刻显著降低(P值均<0.05),而两组各时间点脑动-静脉血氧含量差比较无显著差异(P值均>0.05),CLCVP组患者术中T2~T4时刻脑血氧饱和度较T0时刻显著降低(P值均<0.05),且CLCVP组患者T2、T3时刻脑血氧饱和度显著低于非CLCVP组(P值均<0.05),而术中各时间点两组脑氧摄取率以及脑动-静脉乳酸盐浓度差均无明显变化(P值均>0.05)。术后3 d、术后7 d两组患者肝功能指标AST、ALT以及TBil水平均较术前显著升高(P值均<0.05),术后3 d、术后7 d CLCVP组患者AST、ALT水平显著低于非CLCVP组(P值均<0.05),而两组各时间点TBil比较,差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05)。两组患者围手术期并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.729,P=0.394)。 结论 硝酸甘油CLCVP技术在肝癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的应用,有助于减少患者术中出血量,但术中需要进一步加强对患者脑血氧饱和度的监测,以尽可能减少患者神经并发症发生风险。 Abstract:Objective To investigate the effect of the nitroglycerin-controlled low central venous pressure (CLCVP) technique on brain metabolic markers and cerebral blood oxygen saturation in patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver cancer, and to reduce the risk of neurological complications. Methods A total of 105 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver cancer in Haikou Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from April 2020 to May 2023 were enrolled and randomly divided into CLCVP group with 54 patients and non-CLCVP group with 51 patients. The patients in the CLCVP group were treated with the nitroglycerin CLCVP technique during surgery, while those in the non-CLCVP group were given conventional surgical treatment. The two groups were compared in terms of the following indicators: perioperative indicators; hemodynamic parameters and cerebral oxygen metabolism before anesthesia induction (T0), at 5 minutes after anesthesia induction (T1), at 5 minutes after the beginning of liver parenchyma dissection (T2), at 5 minutes after the end of hepatectomy (T3), and immediately after the end of surgery (T4); the changes in liver function parameters after surgery; the incidence rate of adverse reactions. The independent-samples t test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups, and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups; the analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for comparison between multiple time points. Results Compared with the non-CLCVP group, the CLCVP group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative fluid infusion volume (t=5.408 and 7.220, both P<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in time of operation, anesthesia time, extubation time, resuscitation time and intraoperative urine volume (all P>0.05). Compared with the data at T0, both groups had significant reductions in mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and central venous pressure during surgery (all P<0.05), and compared with the non-CLCVP group, the CLCVP group had significantly lower mean arterial pressure and central venous pressure (P<0.05) and a significantly higher heart rate (P<0.05) at T2 and T3. Compared with the data at T0, both groups had a significant reduction in Ca-jvDO2 at T2 — T4 time points (all P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in Ca-jvDO2 between the two groups at each time point (all P>0.05). Compared with the data at T0, the CLCVP group had a significant reduction in rSO2 at T2 — T4 time points (all P<0.05), and the CLCVP group had a significantly lower level of rSO2 than the non-CLCVP group at T2 — T3 time points (both P<0.05); there were no significant changes in CERO2 and Djv-aBL in either group at each time point (all P>0.05). At 3 and 7 days after surgery, both groups had significant increases in the liver function parameters of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and total bilirubin (TBil) (all P<0.05), and the CLCVP group had significantly lower levels of AST and ALT than the non-CLCVP group (all P<0.05); there was no significant difference in TBil between the two groups at each time point (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of perioperative complications between the two groups (χ2=0.729, P=0.394). Conclusion The application of the nitroglycerin CLCVP technique in laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver cancer can reduce the amount of intraoperative blood loss in patients, but it is necessary to further enhance the monitoring of cerebral blood oxygen saturation during surgery, so as to reduce the risk of neurological complications as much as possible. -
Key words:
- Nitroglycerin /
- Controlling Low Central Venous Pressure /
- Hepatectomy /
- Laparoscopes /
- Comparative Study
-
表 1 临床资料比较
Table 1. Clinical data comparison
指标 CLCVP组(n=54) 非CLCVP组(n=51) 统计值 P值 男/女(例) 34/20 30/21 χ2=0.189 0.664 年龄(岁) 58.49±9.38 59.30±10.22 t=0.423 0.673 BMI(kg/m2) 24.40±3.04 24.16±3.11 t=0.400 0.690 ASA分级(例) χ2=0.382 0.537 Ⅰ级 15 17 Ⅱ级 39 34 肿瘤位置(例) χ2=0.153 0.696 右半肝 45 41 左半肝 9 10 肿瘤直径(cm) 3.85±1.02 3.47±1.10 t=1.838 0.069 肝切除范围(例) χ2=0.743 0.457 局部切除、左外叶 50 45 小体积肝切除 1 2 大体积肝切除 3 4 表 2 两组患者围手术期相关指标比较
Table 2. Comparison of perioperative related indicators between two groups of patients
项目 CLCVP组(n=54) 非CLCVP组(n=51) t值 P值 手术时间(min) 210.58±35.29 217.24±38.22 0.928 0.355 麻醉时间(min) 235.62±26.49 240.25±30.62 0.830 0.409 拔管时间(min) 15.96±2.10 16.38±2.54 0.926 0.357 复苏时间(min) 58.43±13.03 55.49±15.40 1.058 0.293 术中出血量(mL) 240.38±70.95 325.84±90.32 5.408 <0.001 术中尿量(mL) 230.94±69.78 251.67±76.52 1.452 0.150 术中输液量(mL) 1 930.47±352.81 2 454.27±390.46 7.220 <0.001 表 3 两组患者术中血流动力学及SpO2水平比较
Table 3. Comparison of hemodynamic parameters and SpO2 levels between the two groups of patients during surgery
时间 MAP(mmHg) HR(次/min) CVP(mmHg) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) T0 90.48±10.21 91.37±8.33 78.42±8.02 77.93±7.64 8.12±1.93 8.04±1.85 T1 86.79±9.04 88.16±8.30 72.56±10.321) 70.83±8.741) 6.95±1.021) 7.03±1.221) T2 73.29±7.491)2) 80.72±6.401) 71.44±9.301)2) 66.54±7.211) 3.01±0.891)2) 6.84±1.361) T3 72.35±6.501)2) 79.37±7.351) 72.66±12.311)2) 65.35±9.251) 3.51±1.131)2) 6.87±1.051) T4 80.42±9.311) 81.23±8.741) 68.51±11.241) 69.25±9.381) 7.88±1.30 7.92±1.26 F组别 62.725 19.378 131.782 P组别 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 F时间 30.717 9.443 144.089 P时间 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 F交互 4.206 3.319 58.095 P交互 0.003 0.962 <0.001 注:与同组T0比较,1)P<0.05;与同期非CLCVP组比较,2)P<0.05。
表 4 两组患者术中脑代谢指标及rSO2比较
Table 4. Comparison of brain metabolic indicators and rSO2 between the two groups of patients during surgery
时间 CERO2(%) Ca-jvDO2 Djv-aBL(mmHg) rSO2(%) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组(n=54) 非CLCVP组(n=51) T0 65.42±5.50 64.95±7.03 56.48±8.39 55.93±7.45 0.12±0.05 0.11±0.06 75.38±4.20 74.95±5.63 T1 64.78±8.35 64.93±7.30 55.68±7.95 55.74±8.40 0.13±0.07 0.11±0.05 75.27±3.93 76.02±4.65 T2 65.02±10.26 65.32±9.37 49.58±7.501) 50.23±6.371) 0.11±0.06 0.13±0.08 66.34±5.121)2) 75.63±4.98 T3 64.25±10.63 64.18±9.80 47.75±6.491) 46.16±9.321) 0.13±0.07 0.12±0.06 65.63±4.951)2) 74.59±5.63 T4 64.28±8.93 64.53±9.21 45.62±10.631) 47.05±11.211) 0.12±0.08 0.12±0.07 74.01±6.931) 75.11±7.05 F组别 0.002 <0.001 0.100 65.054 P组别 0.968 0.998 0.752 <0.001 F时间 0.264 32.683 0.747 24.034 P时间 0.901 <0.001 0.560 <0.001 F交互 0.032 0.489 2.323 21.022 P交互 0.998 0.726 0.056 <0.001 注:与同组T0比较,1)P<0.05;与同期非CLCVP组比较,2)P<0.05。
表 5 两组患者手术前后肝功能指标比较
Table 5. Comparison of liver function indicators before and after surgery in two groups of patients
时间 AST(U/L) ALT(U/L) TBil(μmol/L) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组(n=51) 术前 21.85±6.23 22.06±5.97 30.27±9.83 32.38±10.01 15.05±3.97 14.73±4.10 术后3 d 168.93±40.221)2) 249.52±56.691) 210.37±60.381)2) 275.62±55.261) 40.39±12.311) 39.42±10.211) 术后7 d 80.39±16.031)2) 120.67±25.371) 96.58±14.221)2) 137.63±30.291) 23.48±6.951) 24.58±7.221) F组别 151.250 74.921 0.006 P组别 <0.001 <0.001 0.941 F时间 915.114 902.692 254.592 P时间 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 F交互 41.779 20.204 0.438 P交互 <0.001 <0.001 0.613 注:与同组术前比较,1)P<0.05;与同期非CLCVP组比较,2)P<0.05。
表 6 两组患者并发症发生情况比较
Table 6. Comparison of complications between the two groups of patients
并发症 CLCVP组
(n=54)
非CLCVP组
(n=51)
苏醒延迟[例(%)] 2(3.70) 1(1.96) 术后24 h低血压[例(%)] 2(3.70) 2(3.92) 恶心呕吐[例(%)] 5(9.26) 4(7.84) 头晕[例(%)] 3(5.56) 1(1.96) -
[1] CHENG K, CAI N, ZHU JH, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages in liver cancer: From mechanisms to therapy[J]. Cancer Commun(Lond), 2022, 42( 11): 1112- 1140. DOI: 10.1002/cac2.12345. [2] CUI JK, LIU M, SHANG XK. Hepatectomy for liver metastasis of gastric cancer: A meta-analysis[J]. Surg Innov, 2019, 26( 6): 692- 697. DOI: 10.1177/1553350619856491. [3] ZHENG YK, WU CX, YAO ZX. Construction of an intraoperative bleeding prediction model for hepatic cancer resection based on machine learning and preoperative data[J]. J Fujian Med Univ, 2022, 56( 6): 552- 560. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4194.2022.06.014.郑咏坤, 吴春香, 姚志雄. 基于机器学习和术前资料构建肝癌切除术中出血预测模型[J]. 福建医科大学学报, 2022, 56( 6): 552- 560. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4194.2022.06.014. [4] LAN DT, LI MD, AN X, et al. Effect of laparoscopic regular hepatectomy on levels of serum AFP, Hcy and quality of life in postoperative patients with primary liver cancer[J]. J Mod Oncol, 2019, 27( 7): 1176- 1180. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2019.07.019.兰戴天, 李茂德, 安祥, 等. 腹腔镜规则性肝叶切除术对原发性肝癌患者术后血清AFP、Hcy水平及生存质量的影响[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2019, 27( 7): 1176- 1180. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2019.07.019. [5] PAN YX, WANG JC, LU XY, et al. Intention to control low central venous pressure reduced blood loss during laparoscopic hepatectomy: A double-blind randomized clinical trial[J]. Surgery, 2020, 167( 6): 933- 941. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.02.004. [6] HANG Y, YANG XY, LI WM, et al. Optimal central venous pressure of controllable low central venous pressure technique in hepatectomy[J/OL]. Chin J Hepat Surg(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13( 6): 813- 817. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2024988.杭轶, 杨小勇, 李文美, 等. 可控性低中心静脉压技术在肝切除术中应用的最适中心静脉压[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13( 6): 813- 817. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2024988. [7] LI JH, CHEN SK, ZHANG T, et al. Intermittent pringle maneuver combined with controlled low central venous pressure prolongs hepatic hilum occlusion time in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma complicated by post hepatitis B cirrhosis: A randomized controlled trial[J]. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2023, 58( 5): 497- 504. DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2147802. [8] DAI HL, LU XL, YANG HJ. Effect and key points of controlled low central venous pressure for laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients[J]. Chin J Curr Adv Gen Surg, 2019, 22( 3): 207- 209. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-9905.2019.03.010.戴华磊, 陆小丽, 杨洪吉. 控制性低中心静脉压技术用于腹腔镜下老年肝癌切除术的效果及操作要点[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2019, 22( 3): 207- 209. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-9905.2019.03.010. [9] HASEGAWA Y, NITTA H, TAKAHARA T, et al. Anterior approach for pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34( 10): 4677- 4678. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07649-7. [10] MORANDI A, RISALITI M, MONTORI M, et al. Predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure in HCC patients: A review of liver function assessment based on laboratory tests scores[J]. Medicina(Kaunas), 2023, 59( 6): 1099. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59061099. [11] LIN J, CHEN LQ, ZHOU YJ, et al. The application of controlled low central venous pressure technology under target-directed fluid therapy in liver surgery[J]. Zhejiang Clin Med J, 2022( 11): 1612- 1614.林靖, 陈良巧, 周艳瑾, 等. 目标导向液体治疗下控制性低中心静脉压技术在肝脏手术中应用[J]. 浙江临床医学, 2022( 11): 1612- 1614. [12] WU JX, DU XQ, CHEN K, et al. Predictive model of postoperative hypotension in patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma resection with controlled low central venous pressure[J]. J Clin Anesthesiol, 2024, 40( 8): 809- 813. DOI: 10.12089/jca.2024.08.005.吴俊雄, 杜小强, 陈坤, 等. 控制性低中心静脉压肝癌切除术患者术后低血压的预测模型[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2024, 40( 8): 809- 813. DOI: 10.12089/jca.2024.08.005. [13] PENG J, PENG SL. The clinical application of controlled low central venous pressure(CLCVP) in laparoscopic hepatectomy: Key points, possible complications and related management[J]. Chin J Pract Surg, 2022, 42( 9): 1039- 1041. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2022.09.19.彭俊, 彭书崚. 腹腔镜肝切除术中控制性低中心静脉压技术实施要点与意外处理[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2022, 42( 9): 1039- 1041. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2022.09.19. [14] GAO Y, WU W, LIU C, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: A meta-analysis[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2021, 100( 32): e26708. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026708. [15] SHA M, ZONG ZP, SHEN C, et al. Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatectomy in pediatric living donor liver transplantation: a review and meta-analysis[J]. Hepatol Int, 2023, 17( 6): 1587- 1595. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-022-10471-z. [16] GAO YS, YANG L, WU Y, et al. Application of remote ischemic preconditioning combined with controlled low central venous pressure in hepatectomy[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2023, 39( 4): 856- 863. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.04.017.高苑淞, 杨柳, 吴悠, 等. 远隔缺血预处理联合控制性低中心静脉压在肝切除术中的应用[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2023, 39( 4): 856- 863. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.04.017. [17] JUNRUNGSEE S, SUWANNIKOM K, TIYAPRASERTKUL W, et al. Efficacy and safety of infrahepatic inferior vena cava clamping under controlled central venous pressure for reducing blood loss during hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial[J]. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2021, 28( 7): 604- 616. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.969. [18] MU ZH, GAO J, XIN C, et al. Effects of controlled low central venous pressure on cerebral blood flow in patients undergoing open hepatectomy[J]. Chin J Anesthesiol, 2022, 42( 12): 1469- 1472. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn131073.20221017.01212.穆子涵, 高巨, 辛超, 等. 控制性低中心静脉压用于开腹肝切除术对患者脑血流的影响[J]. 中华麻醉学杂志, 2022, 42( 12): 1469- 1472. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn131073.20221017.01212. [19] ZHANG YQ, LI YL, CHEN J, et al. TCD monitoring cerebral blood flow of Trendelenburg position in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery[J]. J Clin Anesthesiol, 2015, 31( 5): 436- 438.张禹琦, 李玉兰, 陈军, 等. 妇科腹腔镜手术中Trendelenburg体位时脑血流动力学的变化[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2015, 31( 5): 436- 438. [20] LI SC, YIN Y, WANG P, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy during post-resection phase in low central venous pressure assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy: A randomized controlled superiority trial[J]. J Anesth, 2024, 38( 1): 77- 85. DOI: 10.1007/s00540-023-03282-5. [21] WANG FR, SUN DW, ZHANG NN, et al. The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Gland Surg, 2020, 9( 2): 311- 320. DOI: 10.21037/gs.2020.03.07. [22] LI X, MA L, LIU J, et al. Safety and effectiveness of different levels of controlled low central venous pressure in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection[J]. Clin J Med Off, 2024, 52( 4): 369- 373. DOI: 10.16680/j.1671-3826.2024.04.10.李莘, 马丽, 刘杰, 等. 不同水平控制性低中心静脉压技术用于腹腔镜肝切除术患者安全性及有效性研究[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2024, 52( 4): 369- 373. DOI: 10.16680/j.1671-3826.2024.04.10. -

计量
- 文章访问数: 1207
- HTML全文浏览量: 65
- PDF下载量: 16
- 被引次数: 0