切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02) : 108 -112. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-123X.2023.02.007

临床研究

获得性脑损伤患者成功拔除气管套管的预测因素研究
丁玉菊, 刘照勇, 张波()   
  1. 238000 合肥市第八人民医院康复医学科
    230038 合肥,安徽中医药大学第一附属医院脑病科
  • 收稿日期:2022-05-20 出版日期:2023-04-15
  • 通信作者: 张波

Study on predictors of successful decannulation in patients with acquired brain injury

Yuju Ding, Zhaoyong Liu, Bo Zhang()   

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Eighth People's Hospital of Hefei City, Hefei 238000, China
    Department of Encephalopathy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei 230038, China
  • Received:2022-05-20 Published:2023-04-15
  • Corresponding author: Bo Zhang
  • Supported by:
    "14th Five-year Plan" Hefei Traditional Chinese Medicine Advantage specialty construction project(Hewei Traditional Chinese Medicine Secretariat [2021] No.167)
引用本文:

丁玉菊, 刘照勇, 张波. 获得性脑损伤患者成功拔除气管套管的预测因素研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(02): 108-112.

Yuju Ding, Zhaoyong Liu, Bo Zhang. Study on predictors of successful decannulation in patients with acquired brain injury[J]. Chinese Journal of Brain Diseases and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(02): 108-112.

目的

分析影响获得性脑损伤(ABI)患者拔除气管套管的相关因素并评估各独立因素对ABI患者成功拔管的联合预测价值。

方法

回顾性分析自2017年1月至2021年10月合肥市第八人民医院收治的145例行气管切开术的ABI患者的临床资料。按照是否成功拔管分为拔管组(100例)和未拔管组(45例)。采用单因素、多因素Logistic回归分析筛选出影响拔管结果的独立因素,并用受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线分析评估其联合预测价值。

结果

单因素分析显示:2组患者在意识水平(GCS评分)、肺部感染情况、吞咽功能、咳嗽反射、自愿咳嗽、吸痰次数/8 h及堵管耐受性(堵管≥48 h)方面比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示:肺部感染(95%CI:0.071~0.813,P=0.022),吸痰次数/8 h(95%CI:0.045~0.451,P=0.001)及咳嗽反射(95%CI:1.785~27.718,P=0.005)是拔管结果的独立影响因素,其联合预测模型ROC曲线下面积为0.924(95%CI:0.880~0.969),最佳截断值为0.646,敏感度为84.4%,特异度为90%。

结论

肺部感染情况、吸痰次数/8 h及咳嗽反射对ABI患者成功拔管具有较高的预测价值。

Objective

To explore related factors affecting the results of decannulation in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI), and to evaluate the combined predictive value of independent factors for successful decannulation in patients with ABI.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on clinical data of 145 ABI patients who underwent tracheotomy admitted to the Eighth People's Hospital of Hefei from January 2017 to October 2021. According to the success of decannulation, the group was divided into the decannulation group (n=100) and the undecannulation group (n=45). Independent factors influencing decannulation results were screened by univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis, and their combined predictive value was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results

Univariate analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in consciousness level (GCS score), pulmonary infection control, swallowing function, cough reflex, voluntary cough, sputum aspiration times/8 h and tube blockage tolerance (tube blockage ≥48 h) (P<0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed pulmonary infection (95%CI: 0.071-0.813, P=0.022), sputum aspiration times /8 h (95%CI: 0.045-0.451, P=0.001) and cough reflex (95%CI: 1.785-27.718, P=0.005) was an independent risk factor affecting extubation results, and the area under ROC curve of its combined prediction model was 0.924 (95%CI: 0.880-0.969), the optimal cut-off value was 0.646, the sensitivity was 84.4%, and the specificity was 90%.

Conclusion

Pulmonary infection, sputum aspiration times/8 h and cough reflex have high predictive value for successful decannulation in ABI patients.

图1 病例资料筛选流程图
Fig.1 Case data flow chart
表1 ABI患者气管拔管影响因素的单因素分析[例(%)]
Tab.1 Univariate analysis of influencing factors of tracheal decannulation in ABI patients [n(%)]
因素 拔管组(n=100) 未拔管组(n=45) χ2 P
年龄     1.359 0.244
≤75岁 91(91.00) 38(84.44)    
>75岁 9(9.00) 7(15.56)    
性别     2.651 0.103
59(59.00) 20(44.44)    
41(41.00) 25(55.56)    
入院时GCS评分     0.691 0.406
≥8分 7(7.00) 5(11.11)    
<8分 93(93.00) 40(88.89)    
入院时重要脏器功能     3.541 0.060
正常 71(71.00) 24(53.33)    
异常 29(29.00) 21(46.67)    
试堵管时GCS评分     50.546 <0.001
≥8分 89(89.00) 14(31.11)    
<8分 11(11.00) 31(68.89)    
肺部感染     29.978 <0.001
69(69.00) 9(20.00)    
31(31.00) 36(80.00)    
中重度贫血     0.161 0.688
70(70.00) 30(66.67)    
30(30.00) 15(33.33)    
低蛋白血症     2.595 0.107
61(61.00) 21(46.67)    
39(39.00) 24(53.33)    
吞咽困难/鼻饲     22.216 <0.001
60(60.00) 8(17.78)    
40(40.00) 37(82.22)    
咳嗽反射     43.251 <0.001
9(9.00) 27(60.00)    
91(91.00) 18(40.00)    
自主咳嗽     10.315 0.001
76(76.00) 44(97.78)    
24(24.00) 1(2.22)    
吸痰次数/8 h     48.147 <0.001
≤2次 88(88.00) 14(31.11)    
>2次 12(12.00) 31(68.87)    
多重耐药菌感染     0.002 0.960
15(15.00) 18(40.00)    
22(22.00) 27(60.00)    
堵管试验(≥48 h)     19.410 <0.001
未通过 63(63.00) 44(97.78)    
通过 37(37.00) 1(2.22)    
表2 ABI患者气管拔管影响因素的多因素分析
Tab.2 Multi-factor analysis of influencing factors of tracheal decannulation in ABI patients
图2 联合预测模型受试者工作特性曲线
Fig.2 Joint prediction model receiver operating characteristic curve
[1]
雷铃,吴朝文,陈万,等.神经重症患者气管切开的预测因素分析[J].临床急诊杂志, 2022, 23(2): 147-150. DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.1009-5918.2022.02.014.
[2]
高进保,李文德,李运军,等.早期气管切开治疗老年重型颅脑损伤的疗效分析及对预后的影响[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2018, 4(6): 349-352. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.06.008.
[3]
罗柔,谭建龙,刘志光.气管插管或切开后气管狭窄的危险因素分析[J].中国呼吸与危重监护杂志, 2021, 20(5): 330-334. DOI: 10.7507/1671-6205.202010069.
[4]
徐挺,陈建良,董子龙.神经重症患者肺部感染的危险因素分析[J].中华神经医学杂志, 2020, 19(1): 54-58. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-8925.2020.01.009.
[5]
Kim HS, Lee CE, Yang YS. Factors associated with caring behaviors of family caregivers for patients receiving home mechanical ventilation with tracheostomy: a cross-sectional study[J]. PLoS One, 2021, 16(7): e0254987. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254987.
[6]
张贺,梁绍钦,杜文杰,等.脑出血患者气管切开并发肺部感染的预测研究[J].中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(5): 291-297. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-123X.2022.05.007.
[7]
Enrichi C, Battel I, Zanetti C, et al. Clinical criteria for tracheostomy decannulation in subjects with acquired brain injury[J]. Respir Care, 2017, 62(10): 1255-1263. DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05470.
[8]
Zanata Ide L, Santos RS, Hirata GC. Tracheal decannulation protocol in patients affected by traumatic brain injury[J]. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2014, 18(2): 108-114. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363467.
[9]
杜玉英,时惠,任钰.康复医学科气管切开重症患者影响拔管的多因素分析[J].中国康复医学杂志, 2021, 36(6): 670-675. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1242.2021.06.005.
[10]
丁玉菊,徐绍侠,张伟,等.神经重症气管切开患者拔管临床指征的Meta分析[J].中华危重病急救医学, 2019, 31(11): 1378-1383. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.11.013.
[11]
黄丛萍,倪莹莹,章良翔,等.持续植物状态气管切开插管两种拔管方式的对照研究[J].中国康复医学杂志, 2017, 32(7): 798-801. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1242.2017.07.013.
[12]
Perin C, Meroni R, Rega V, et al. Parameters influencing tracheostomy decannulation in patients undergoing rehabilitation after severe Acquired Brain Injury (sABI)[J]. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2017, 21(4): 382-389. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598654.
[13]
Santus P, Gramegna A, Radovanovic D, et al. A systematic review on tracheostomy decannulation: a proposal of a quantitative semiquantitative clinical score[J]. BMC Pulm Med, 2014, 14: 201-208. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-201.
[14]
Reverberi C, Lombardi F, Lusuardi M, et al. Development of the decannulation prediction tool in patients with dysphagia after acquired brain injury[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2019, 20(4): 470-475.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.09.022.
[15]
Pozzi M, Galbiati S, Locatelli F, et al. Performance of a tracheostomy removal protocol for pediatric patients in rehabilitation after acquired brain injury: factors associated with timing and possibility of decannulation[J]. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2017, 52(11): 1509-1517. DOI: 10.1002/ppul.23832.
[16]
Zhou T, Wang J, Zhang C, et al. Tracheostomy decannulation protocol in patients with prolonged tracheostomy referred to a rehabilitation hospital: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Intensive Care, 2022, 10(1): 34. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-022-00626-3.
[17]
叶富跃,杨堃,王子珍,等.重型颅脑外伤昏迷患者气管切开后下呼吸道医院感染的危险因素分析[J].疑难病杂志, 2020, 19(9): 896-899, 905. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6450.2020.09.008.
[18]
杨露,魏海棠,谢亮,等.吞咽功能训练联合肺康复对脑卒中后气管切开患者拔管成功率及肺部感染疗效的研究[J].中国康复, 2022, 37(1): 33-36. DOI: 10.3870/zgkf.2022.01.008.
[19]
李学兵,许绍珍,施丽丽,等. ICU气管切开患者铜绿假单胞菌肺部感染危险因素及耐药性[J].中华医院感染学杂志, 2020, 30(23): 3631-3634. DOI: 10.11816/cn.ni.2020-200113.
[1] 李小钦, 翁丽红, 林晟, 何华强, 李鸿茹, 陈愉生, 许能銮. 脱机拔管后呼吸衰竭患者序贯经鼻高流量湿化氧疗失败的危险因素分析[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(04): 271-278.
[2] 肖金红, 胡丙兰, 黄忠明, 王旭, 刘海军. 气管切开不同时机对重型颅脑损伤患者肺部感染的影响[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(05): 406-410.
[3] 王桂龙, 顾正峰, 吴金波, 胡春晓, 秦钟, 张昕, 陈静瑜. 双肺移植手术室内拔管二例[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(01): 138-140.
[4] 王蓉, 徐兴祥, 曹俊霞, 郭晓娟, 杨捷, 杨爱春, 王庆, 史甜, 孙玉娟, 滕为云, 刘菲, 刘必琴, 季亚芹. 肺康复管理对重症脑卒中气管切开患者的干预疗效[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(01): 104-106.
[5] 刘晓青, 张雪玲, 刘权兴, 罗茂雨, 戴纪刚. 肺癌术后不同时机拔除胸腔引流管临床结局比较的网状Meta分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(06): 787-791.
[6] 邓双钊, 彭为平, 郑映金, 黎裕星, 温雪花, 梁昌河. 右美托咪定及地佐辛麻醉对肺癌根治术拔管时反应的影响[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(06): 800-802.
[7] 尉腊革, 李毅, 张建辉, 刘彦军, 李东迂, 栾中华. 单孔胸腔镜肺癌根治术后不同胸腔引流液量时拔管的康复分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(04): 478-480.
[8] 黄骁, 项建斌. 局部复发直肠癌的外科治疗进展[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(06): 643-647.
[9] 李宏亮, 田野, 马燕娟, 朱宁, 苏芮, 石广志, 周建新. 经皮扩张气管切开术标准操作流程在神经重症患者中的应用[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2021, 07(03): 219-227.
[10] 张贺, 梁绍钦, 杜文杰, 刘辉, 符会涛, 朱德才. 脑出血患者气管切开并发肺部感染的预测研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(05): 291-297.
[11] 王燕, 郭蕊, 王淑杰. 老年烧伤气管切开患者死亡风险诊断模型构建及对策分析[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 249-253.
[12] 翁梓珑, 朱丽, 林大卫, 潘文志, 周达新, 葛均波. 国产经导管瓣膜系统治疗重度主动脉瓣狭窄长期预后及其预测因素分析[J]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 114-119.
[13] 郑屹, 谢冰歆, 刘彤. 白细胞端粒长度与心房颤动相关性研究进展[J]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2022, 10(04): 246-249.
[14] 赵悦, 马士凤, 周娜, 王茜, 张聪, 刘笑孝, 蒋海燕, 程思琪, 郑荣秀. 儿童代谢健康型肥胖的发病机制及预测指标[J]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2022, 08(01): 52-55.
[15] 王宇梅, 刘猛. 脑梗死后恶性脑水肿预测因素的研究进展[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 163-166.
阅读次数
全文


摘要