摘 要 目的:总结电极片定位超声引导下经皮穿刺置管引流(PCD)治疗感染性胰腺坏死(IPN)的经验。方法:回顾性分析2010年10月—2016年12月间61例采用电极片定位超声引导下PCD治疗的IPN的临床资料。结果:全组61例均顺利施行PCD。23例(37.7%)仅行PCD治疗,22例(36.1%)经PCD治疗后中转微创腹膜后入路胰腺坏死组织清除术(MARPN),16例(26.2%)患者经PCD治疗后中转开腹胰腺坏死组织清除术(OPN)。全组病死率24.6%(15/61),包括仅行PCD治疗6例、中转MARPN者4例和中转OPN者5例。PCD术后并发症36例次,包括12例次出血,15例次胰瘘,9例次肠瘘。穿刺引流液培养结果包括单菌种感染19例(31.1%)和多重感染42例(68.9%),其中多重耐药菌(MDRO)感染38例(62.3%)。与患者死亡有关的因素包括2012版急性胰腺炎严重程度分级、外科干预后脓毒症是否逆转、穿刺并发出血以及MDRO感染(均P<0.05)。结论:电极片定位超声引导下PCD是一种相对简便安全的胰周穿刺引流方法,以此为基础的“升阶梯”治疗策略是治疗IPN的有效策略。
关键词 胰腺炎,急性坏死性;引流术;定位标记
随着重症医学水平的提高,越来越多的重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)患者得以渡过多器官功能不全(MODS)期,从而进入感染期。因此,感染性胰腺坏死(infected pancreatic necrosis,IPN)已成为SAP患者的主要死因之一[1]。近年来,以经皮穿刺置管引流(percutaneous catheter drainage,PCD)为基础的“升阶梯”治疗策略已成为治疗IPN的主流策略[2-5]。为提高PCD操作的简便性和安全性,笔者医院创新采用电极片定位超声引导下PCD,治疗61例IPN病例,现将治疗结果总结报告如下。
回顾性分析我院2010年10月—2016年12月收治的61例采用电极片定位超声引导下PCD治疗的IPN患者临床资料。全部患者均获取引流液行细菌或真菌培养确诊。无菌性胰腺坏死、胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿等排除在外。IPN的诊断标准参考中华医学会外科学分会胰腺外科学组制定的急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2014)和2013年美国胃肠病学会发布的急性胰腺炎治疗指南[6-8]。
61例IPN患者中,男39例,女22例;平均年龄(45.6±10.8)岁;按照2012年Atlanta修订标准[9],中度重症29例,重症32例;病因包括胆源性胰腺炎29例,高脂血症性胰腺炎18例,酒精性胰腺炎6例,其他原因引起的胰腺炎8例。所有患者均签署PCD治疗同意书。
MDRO的诊断标准参照多重耐药菌医院感染与控制中国专家共识[10]。MDRO主要包括耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)、耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE)、产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBLs)肠杆菌科(如大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌)、耐碳青酶烯类肠杆菌科细菌、多重耐药铜绿假单胞菌(MDR-PA)、多重耐药鲍曼不动杆菌(MDRAB)等。
1.2.1 基本治疗原则 所有患者均按照中华医学会外科学分会胰腺外科学组制定的急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2014)进行规范化诊治[6-8],主要治疗措施包括早期积极的液体复苏、以肠内营养为主的营养支持方案和器官功能支持等,不予以预防性使用抗生素。起病1~2周后,若患者出现脓毒症表现或CT可见“气泡征”时,在未获得药敏结果之前,根据指南推荐选用碳青霉烯类抗生素作为一线经验性药物抗感染[11-12],待获取培养及药敏结果后,立即根据药敏结果合理调整选用敏感抗生素。
1.2.2 PCD的指征和时机 主要指征是经抗生素治疗后脓毒症仍难以控制的胰腺或胰周坏死合并感染。无菌性积液或坏死不作为PCD的指征。尽量延迟干预时间至起病4周以后,以利于胰腺或胰周形成边界清楚、纤维壁厚的包裹性坏死积液,减少术后 出血、肠瘘 等并发症的发生 [1,4,13-14]。
1.2.3 电极片定位超声引导下PCD的技术要点建立包括胰腺外科、重症医学科、超声影像科、CT室等在内的多学科团队(MDT)。拟行PCD前,仔细阅读前1次的腹部CT影像,以剑突、肚脐、肋骨、髂骨等解剖标志为参照点,在拟穿刺的部位、需要避开的脏器部位(如结肠、脾脏、肾脏)等处贴上电极片。穿刺当天行腹部CT检查,根据复查CT的影像结果,调整穿刺点(图1)。PCD操作在局麻下进行,B超对拟定穿刺点作最后的定位。穿刺采用Seldinger技术,根据坏死积液的范围和部位,留置1根或多根14 F或16 F猪尾巴导管。穿刺液立即送细菌或真菌培养。术后采取手法冲洗或持续灌洗的方式保持引流通畅,根据引流情况,必要时积极地换管和扩管。
图1 电极片定位PCD穿刺路径
Figure 1 Positioning of the electrode plates for puncture of PCD
1.2.4 升阶梯的指征和方法 升阶梯的指征主要包括:⑴ PCD后脓毒症持续或反复,虽经积极的冲洗引流、换管及扩管等措施仍难以控制时;⑵ PCD后出现严重并发症,如肠瘘、大出血等。首选微创入路腹膜后胰腺坏死组织清除术(MARPN),必要时可以升阶梯至开放胰腺坏死组织清除术(OPN)。
计量资料的比较采用成组t检验或χ2检验,计数资料的比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。全部统计均采用SPSS 20.0分析,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
全组61例均顺利完成电极片定位超声引导下PCD,其中23例(37.7%)仅行PCD治疗,22例(36.1%)经PCD治疗后升阶梯行MARPN和16例(26.2%)升阶梯行OPN。全组病死率24.6%(15/61),死亡病例包括仅行PCD者6例,PCD治疗后升阶梯行MARPN者4例和升阶梯行OPN者5例。PCD后外科并发症36例次,包括12例次出血,15例次胰瘘,9例次肠瘘。
61例PCD穿刺引流液培养结果,单菌种感染19例(31.1%),多重感染42例(68.9%)。其中多重耐药菌(MDRO)感染38例(62.3%)。具体培养结果见表1。
表1 61例PCD穿刺引流液病原学结果
Table 1 Pathogenic results from the drainage fl uid cultures of the 61 patients
产气肠杆菌 1(1.6)
分析结果显示,与本组患者死亡有关的因素包括2012版急性胰腺炎(AP)严重程度分级、外科干预后脓毒症是否逆转、穿刺并发出血以及MDRO感染等(P<0.05)。死亡原因主要包括胰周感染后继发大出血、肠瘘和多器官功能衰竭(MODS)(表2)。
表2 全组IPN患者死亡相关的因素分析
Table 2 Analysis of factors associated with death of the entire group of patients
因素 存活(n=45) 死亡(n=16) P性别[n(%)]男29(64.4) 10(62.5) 0.89女16(35.6) 6(37.5)年龄(岁,±s) 44.6±12.1 50.2±11.6 0.26病因[n(%)]胆源性 22(48.9) 7(43.7)0.45高脂血症性 13(28.9) 5(31.2)酒精性 3(6.7) 3(18.8)其他 7(15.5) 1(6.3)严重程度分级(2012)[n(%)]中度重症 29(64.4) 0(0.0) <0.01重症 16(35.6) 16(1.0)起病至穿刺时间间隔(d,
±s) 42.3±10.6 24.4±6.3 0.21脓毒症逆转[n(%)]45(100.0) 2(12.5) <0.01中转外科手术引流[n(%)]29(64.45) 9(56.3) 0.56穿刺并发症[n(%)]出血 5(11.1) 7(43.8) 0.01胰瘘 12(26.7) 3(18.8) 0.77肠瘘 6(13.3) 3(18.8) 0.91感染细菌种类[n(%)]单菌种感染 14(31.1) 5(31.3) 1.00多重感染 31(68.9) 11(68.7)细菌耐药情况[n(%)]MDRO感染 24(53.3) 14(87.5) 0.02普通细菌感染 21(46.7) 2(12.5)
胰腺或胰周坏死积液继发感染是急性胰腺炎最严重的并发症之一[1,6,8],病死率高达15%~30%。积极的外科干预至关重要。近年来,各种微创的引流或清创手术应用于临床,使得IPN的治疗策略发生了重大转变。以PCD为基础的“升阶梯”治疗策略正成为新的治疗IPN的主流策略[2-5]。因此,如何安全有效地进行PCD成为IPN治疗最关键的技术环节。目前普遍应用的方法是B超或CT引导下进行[15-18],两种方法各有优缺点。B超引导的优点在于简便易行,可在床旁进行,费用较低,无放射性。但由于重症胰腺炎患者往往肠胀气明显,有时B超定位非常困难。有时B超很难鉴别扩张积液的肠管和包裹性坏死积液区,容易造成肠管损伤。而且B超具有明显的操作者依赖性。CT引导的优点在于精准,但实际操作过程复杂且费用较高,患者和操作者往往需要长时间暴露于大剂量射线下,为保证穿刺安全往往需有丰富经验的介入科医生操作且学习曲线较长。鉴于此,作者从临床实际出发,采用电极片定位超声引导下进行胰周坏死积液PCD。此方法是对B超和CT引导穿刺方法的取长补短。经过实践,笔者体会其具有以下优点:⑴ 操作简便。利用金属电极片在CT下显示为高密度的参照点,只需根据前1次CT影像,在患者体表预估穿刺点并粘贴电极片,拟穿刺前再次复查CT后,根据电极片位置,从而得出最佳的穿刺点。PCD时再次通过B超实时判断定位点是否准确。⑵ 操作安全。根据电极片定位获取的最佳穿刺点,行PCD前再次利用超声进行引导,以获得最佳的置管方向及再次确认穿刺入路周围无组织脏器或大血管,从而最大限度的避免肠瘘、出血等穿刺并发症,起到双重保障的作用。本组采用该方法行PCD均顺利完成操作,未发生1例误伤肠管、脾脏、肾脏或大血管。术后外科并发症36例次,包括12例次出血,15例次胰瘘,9例次肠瘘。这些并发症大多与胰腺坏死本身有关。
研究[4,8]表明,单纯应用PCD,无需进一步的外科手术,可以治愈23%~50%的IPN患者。本组资料也显示单纯应用PCD治疗IPN患者的成功率为27.9%。对于IPN的治疗,最关键的问题在于如何做到使胰腺或胰周感染性坏死积液获得充分引流和坏死组织得到最大限度的清除[19-20]。治疗脓毒症的核心措施在于从源头上消除感染源。尽管PCD是治疗IPN的最重要的外科干预措施之一,但是由于受到引流管管径小、坏死组织液化不完全等因素制约,还是很难一次性的将胰腺坏死组织清除。此时,经PCD置管的原窦道升阶梯行MARPN手术清创则是对PCD的很好补充,其清除坏死组织的效果更佳、并发症发生率及病死率均显著低于开放手术[21-25]。而对于PCD或MARPN仍不能完全清除坏死灶、脓毒症仍难以控制时,或者PCD、MARPN引起严重并发症时,适时中转OPN是挽救病人生命的必要措施。
总之,电极片定位超声引导下PCD具有创伤小、操作简便易行、安全可靠等优点,值得临床推广应用。
参考文献
[1]Forsmark CE, Vege SS, Wilcox CM. Acute Pancreatitis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 375(20):1972–1981.
[2]van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis[J].N Engl J Med, 2010, 362(16):1491–1502. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908821.
[3]da Costa DW, Boerma D, van Santvoort HC, et al. Staged multidisciplinary step up management for necrotizing pancreatitis[J]. Br J Surg, 2014, 101(1):e65–79. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9346.
[4]Li A, Cao F, Li J, et al. Step-up mini-invasive surgery for infected pancreatic necrosis: Results from prospective cohort study[J]. Pancreatology, 2016, 16(4):508–514. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.03.014.
[5]van Baal MC, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL, et al. Systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis[J]. Br J Surg, 2011, 98(1):18–27. doi:10.1002/bjs.7304.
[6]Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis[J].Am J Gastroentel, 2013, 108(9):1400–1415. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.218.
[7]中华医学会外科学分会胰腺外科学组. 急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2014)[J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志, 2015, 21(1):1–4. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007–8118.2015.01.001.Pancreatic Surgery Group of Surgery Branch of Chinese.Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis(2014 edition)[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatobiliary Surgery, 2015,21(1):1–4. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007–8118.2015.01.001.
[8]Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis[J]. Pancreatology, 2013, 13(4 Suppl 2):e1–15. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2013.07.063.
[9]Windsor JA, Johnson CD, Petrov MS, et al. Classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis: towards a way forward[J]. Pancreatology,2015, 15(2):101–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.01.006.
[10]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.Huang X, Deng ZD, Ni YX, et al. Chinese experts'consensus on prevention and control of multidrug resist-ance organism healthcareassociated infection[J]. Chinese Journal of Infection Control, 2015,14(1):1–9. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671–9638.2015.01.001.
[11]Sugimoto M, Sonntag DP, Flint GS, et al. A percutaneous drainage protocol for severe and moderately severe acute pancreatitis[J].Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(11):3282–3291. doi: 10.1007/s00464–015–4077–1.
[12]Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas (AISP),Pezzilli R, Zerbi A, et al. Consensus guidelines on severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2015, 47(7):532–543. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2015.03.022.
[13]黄耿文, 申鼎成. 意大利重症急性胰腺炎共识指南(2015)解读[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2016, 25(3):313–317. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.03.001.Huang GW, Shen DC. Interpretation of consensus guidelines for severe acute pancreatitis (2015) in Italy[J]. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2016, 25(3):313–317. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.03.001.
[14]van Grinsven J, van Brunschot S, Bakker OJ, et al. Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study[J]. HPB (Oxford), 2015, doi: 10.1111/hpb.12491.
[15]Babu RY, Gupta R, Kang M, et al. Predictors of surgery in patients with severe acute pancreatitis managed by the stepup approach[J]. Ann Surg, 2013, 257(4):737–750. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318269d25d.
[16]杨耀成, 黄耿文, 李宜雄, 等. 经皮穿刺置管引流治疗急性胰腺炎合并坏死感染的预后分析[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2015, 27(2):94–96. doi:10.11952/j.issn.1007–1954.2015.02.002.Yang YC, Huang GW, Li YX, et al. Prognostic analysis on percutaneous catheter drainage in the treatment of acute pancreatitis combined with infected necrosis[J]. Journal of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, 2015, 27(2):94–96. doi:10.11952/j.issn.1007–1954.2015.02.002.
[17]Wroński M, Cebulski W, Karkocha D, et al. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis[J]. Surg Endosc,2013, 27(11):4397–4398. doi: 10.1007/s00464–013–3114–1.
[18]Kawakami H, Itoi T, Sakamoto N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage for peripancreatic fluid collections: where are we now?[J]. Gut Liver, 2014, 8(4):341–355. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2014.8.4.341.
[19]申鼎成, 周书毅, 黄耿文, 等. 多重耐药菌感染的包裹性胰腺坏死的外科治疗策略[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2016, 25(9):1319–1323.doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.09.016.Shen DC, Zhou SY, Huang GW, et al. Surgical treatment strategies for wall-off pancreatic necrosis with multi-drug resistant organism infections[J]. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2016,25(9):1319–1323. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.09.016.
[20]杨慧明, 杨双汇, 黄耿文. 急性坏死性胰腺炎合并感染的病原菌及耐药性分析[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2015, 24(9):1285–1288.doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2015.09.015.Yang HM, Yang SS, Huang GW. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis and associated infection: pathogens and antimicrobial resistance[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2015, 24(9):1285–1288.doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2015.09.015.
[21]Raraty MG, Halloran CM, Dodd S, et al. Minimal access retroperitoneal panreatic necrosectomy: improvement in morbidity and mortality with a less invasive approach[J]. Ann Surg, 2010,251(5): 787–793. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d96c53.
[22]Gomatos IP, Halloran CM, Ghaneh P, et al. Outcomes from minimal access retroperitoneal and open pancreatic necrosectomy in 394 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis[J]. Ann Surg, 2016,263(5):992–1001. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001407.
[23]Kulkarni S, Bogart A, Buxbaum J, et al. Surgical transgastric debridement of walled off pancreatic necrosis: an option for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(3): 575–582.doi: 10.1007/s00464–014–3700–x.
[24]蔡守旺, 刘志伟, 黄志强, 等. 腹膜后入路经皮肾镜下感染性胰腺坏死的治疗[J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志, 2010, 16(8):597–599.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007–8118.2010.08.012.Cai SW, Liu ZW, Huang ZQ, et al. Application of retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy using percutaneous nephroscope[J].Chinese Journal of Hepatobiliary Surgery, 2010, 16(8):597–599.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007–8118.2010.08.012.
[25]Yokoi Y, Kikuyama M, Kurokami T, et al. Early dual drainage combining transpapillary endotherapy and percutaneous catheter drainage in patients with pancreatic fi stula associated with severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Pancreatology, 2016, 16(4):497–507. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2016.03.007.
Percutaneous catheter drainage under positioning of electrode plates and ultrasound guidance: a report of 61 cases
Abstract Objective: To describe the experiences in treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) by percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) under positioning of the electrode plates and ultrasound guidance.Methods: The clinical data of 61 patients with IPN undergoing PCD under positioning of the electrode plates and ultrasound guidance between October 2010 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed.Results: PCD was successfully performed in the entire group of the 61 patients, of whom, 23 cases (37.7%)underwent PCD alone, 22 cases (36.1%) were converted to minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN) and 16 cases (26.2%) were converted to open pancreatic necrosectomy (OPN) after PCD. The mortality rate in the whole group was 24.6% (15/61), which included 6 cases undergoing PCD alone,4 cases undergoing MARPN conversion and 5 cases undergoing OPN conversion. After PCD, complications occurred 36 times that included 12 times of bleeding, 15 times of pancreatic leakage and 9 times of intestinal leakage. Results of the drainage fluid cultures showed 19 cases (31.1%) had mono-bacterial infection and 42 cases(68.9%) had mixed bacterial infections, in which 38 cases (62.3%) were caused by multi-drug resistant organisms(MDRO). The factors associated with death of the patients included the severity score of acute pancreatitis (2012),reversal of sepsis after surgical intervention, bleeding after PCD and MDRO infection (all P<0.05).Conclusion: PCD under positioning of the electrode plates and ultrasound guidance is a simple and safe method of peripancreatic fluid drainage, based on which, the “step-up” approach is an effective strategy for dealing with IPN.
Key words Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Drainage; Fiducial Markers
CLC number:R657.5
doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2017.09.014
http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2017.09.014
Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2017, 26(9):1168-1173.
中图分类号:R657.5
基金项目:中南大学湘雅医院管理研究基金资助项目(2016GL12)。
收稿日期:2017-05-19;
修订日期:2017-08-16。
(本文编辑 姜晖)
本文引用格式:申鼎成, 刘志勇, 黄耿文, 等. 电极片定位超声引导下经皮穿刺置管引流治疗感染性胰腺坏死:附61例报告[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(9):1168-1173. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2017.09.014
Cite this article as: Shen DC, Liu ZY, Huang GW, et al. Percutaneous catheter drainage under positioning of electrode plates and ultrasound guidance: a report of 61 cases[J]. Chin J Gen Surg, 2017, 26(9):1168-1173.doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2017.09.014