摘要
目的比较双涤纶套鹅颈管与Tenckhoff管在持续性非卧床腹膜透析（CAPD）患者中的临床疗效。方法前瞻性入选首次植管并接受CAPD治疗的终末期肾脏病（ESRD）患者110例，随机分为鹅颈管组（A组）和Tenckhoff管组（B组），各55例。腹透管末端均为直型，以常规手术法植入，随访1年。记录并发症、生存时间、退出透析或死亡等结局。采用Kaplan—Meier法、Log—Rank柃验进行生存分析。结果随访结束时，110例CAPD患者中17例死亡，3例转为肾移植，8例转为血液透析治疗，3例转至其他医院，79例（71．8％）继续在我院腹透治疗。两组患者共发生腹膜炎26例（35例次），总腹膜炎发生率为0．32次／病人年，A组为0．35次／病人年和B组为0．29次／病人年（P〉0．05）。植管距离首次腹膜炎时间分别为A组（30~29）周和B组（29±4）周（P〉0．05）。12个月时两组发生腹膜炎的风险同为26．97％。两组共发生隧道感染2次，出口感染9次，隧道及出口感染的发生率为0．1次／病人年。与A组比较，B组隧道感染（0．036次／病人年比0）和出口感染（0．11次／病人年比0．06次／病人年）发生率较高，但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组间导管机械并发症（导管移位、大网膜包裹、腹透液渗漏、外涤纶套滑出）、腹股沟疝及腹痛的发生率差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组各有4例拔管，12个月技术生存率两组同为92．73％。两组共17例死亡（15．45％），其中A组死亡7例，B组死亡10例（P〉0．05），死亡原因主要为心脑血管并发症（47．1％）和感染（23．5％）。患者12个月生存率A组为86．34％，B组为80．68％（P〉0．05）。结论鹅颈管与Tenckhoff管应用于CAPD患者，在感染并发症与机械并发症的发生率、12个月技术生存率及患者生存率等方面的差异均无统计学意义，两种腹透管的疗效相近。
Objective To compare the efficacy between the two-cuff swan neck catheter and the Tenckhoff catheter in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis （CAPD） patients prospectively. Methods One hundred and ten patients with end-stage renal disease （ESRD） were selected as candidates, who received catheter implantation and CAPD therapy for the first time. Patients were divided into group A （swan neck catheter group） and group B （Tenckhoff catheter group）, 55 patients for each group. Catheters of both groups had a straight end and were implanted by routine surgical procedure. One-year follow-up was performed and information was recorded such as complications, survival time, quit of dialysis, death, etc. Survival analysis was carried out by Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank tests. Results At the end of follow-up, 17 patients died, 3 received renal transplantation, 8 were transferred to hemodialysis, 3 went to other hospitals, and 79 patients （71.8%） remained in our department for CAPD. Twenty-six patients of both groups had peritonitis with a total of 35 occurrences. The total incidence of peritonitis was 0.32 times/patient year, with the detailed figure of 0.35 times/patient year for group A and 0.29 times/patient year for group B respectively （P〉0.05）. The time interval between the catheter implanting and the onset of peritonitis was （30±29） weeks and （29±24） weeks for group A and group B respectively （P〉0.05）. The risk of developing peritonitis in both groups was 26.97% within 1 year. Tunnel infection occurred in 2 patients and exit-site infections in 9 patients of two groups. The incidence of tunnel plus exit-site infections was 0.1 times/patient year. Incidence of tunnel infection and the exit-site infection for group A was lower than that of group B （0 vs 0.036 times/patient year and 0.06 times/patient year vs 0.11 times/patient year respectively）. However, the difference was not significant （P〉0.05）. Mechanical complications of catheter （catheter migration, omentum wrapping, leakage of peritoneal dialysates, slip out of outer cuff）, incidence of inguinal hernia and bellyache between two groups were not significantly different （P〉0.05）. There were 4 cases of catheter drawing in each group. Both two groups had the same 12-month technical survival rate as 92.73%. Of 17 dead cases, 7 were in group A and 10 in group B （P〉0.05）. The main death causes were cardiocerebral events （47.1%） and infections （23.5%）. The 12-month survival rate was 86.34% for group A and 80.68% for group B （P〉0.05）. Conclusions There are no significant differences of infection, mechanical complications, technical survival rate and patients＇ survival rate between two groups. The efficacy of swan-neck catheter is similar to Tenckhoff catheter in CAPD patients.
出处
《中华肾脏病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2008年第10期685-689,共5页
Chinese Journal of Nephrology
基金
上海市重点学科建设基金（T0201）
上海市卫生局重点学科建设基金（05111001）
上海市卫生局重点课题（2003ZD002）
