您的位置：山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报（医学版）》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2022, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (9): 97-101.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2022.1378

• 临床医学 • 上一篇    下一篇

181例高分级动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血患者术前再出血的影响因素

胥凯1,韩超2,丁守銮3,丁璇2,邢德广2,王成伟2   

  1. 1.山东大学第二医院, 山东 济南 250033;2.山东大学第二医院神经外科, 山东 济南 250033;3.山东大学第二医院循证医学研究所, 山东 济南 250033
  • 发布日期:2022-09-02
  • 通讯作者: 丁璇. E-mail:kydx1996@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    山东省医药卫生科技计划发展项目(2014WS0421);济南市临床医学科技创新计划(201602152)

Factors of preoperative rebleeding in 181 patients with poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

XU Kai1, HAN Chao2, DING Shouluan3, DING Xuan2, XING Deguang2, WANG Chengwei2   

  1. 1. The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250033, Shandong, China;
    2. Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250033, Shandong, China;
    3. Center of Evidence-Based Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250033, Shandong, China
  • Published:2022-09-02

PDF (PC)

86

摘要： 目的 探讨高分级动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)患者术前再出血的影响因素。 方法 本研究为回顾性队列研究,共纳入181例符合世界神经外科学会联合会(WFNS)IV级和V级的aSAH患者。所有患者根据在治疗前有无再出血分为再出血组(n=26)和未再出血组(n=155)。采用病例-对照研究分析方法,分析比较两组患者的人口统计学特征、病史、临床状况、WFNS分级、CT Fisher分级、动脉瘤特征、治疗时间及6个月时的预后有关联的影响因素。 结果 181例中有26例术前再出血。再出血组和未再出血组的性别、年龄、既往史(高血压、糖尿病、肥胖)、个人史(吸烟、酗酒)、临床状况(脑疝、脑内血肿、低密度区、脑积水)和放射学特征(动脉瘤位置、动脉瘤大小、多发动脉瘤)的差异均无统计学意义。再出血组中脑室内出血(IVH)13例,WFNS分级V级15例,CT Fisher分级3~4级25例,与未再出血组相比差异均有统计学意义。多因素分析表明,脑室内出血(OR=3.804,95%CI:1.161~12.462,P=0.027)为再出血的独立危险因素。再出血组预后不良(mRS 3~6分)20例(76.92%),死亡率26.9%,与未再出血组相比差异有统计学意义,再出血组的预后不良。 结论 IVH、WFNS V级和CT Fisher 3~4级与术前再出血相关。人口统计学特征、病史、临床状况、患者治疗时间、脑室外引流和动脉瘤特征与术前再出血无显著相关性。

关键词: 颅内动脉瘤, 蛛网膜下腔出血, 再出血, 影响因素

Abstract: Objective To investigate the influencing factors of rebleeding in patients with poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage(aSAH). Methods A total of 181 patients who met the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies(WFNS)grade IV or V criteria were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into rebleeding group(n=26)and non-rebleeding group(n=155). Case-control study analysis was used to compare the demographic characteristics, medical history, clinical status, WFNS grade, CT Fisher grade, aneurysm characteristics, treatment timing and outcomes at 6 months between the two groups. Results Preoperative relleeding was observed in 26 of 181 cases. There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups in gender, age, medical history(hypertension, diabetes and obesity), personal history(smoking and drinking), clinical status(cerebral hernia, intracerebral hematoma, low density area and hydrocephalus)and radiological characteristics(aneurysm location, aneurysm size, multiple aneurysms). In the rebleeding group, 13 cases had intraventricular hemorrhage, 15 cases were of WFNS grade V, 25 cases were of CT Fisher grade 3-4, and the differences were statistically significant compared with those in the non-rebleeding group. Multivariate analysis showed that intraventricular hemorrhage(OR=3.804, 95%CI: 1.161-12.462, P=0.027)was an independent risk factor for rebleeding. In the rebleeding group, 20 cases(76.92%)had poor prognosis(mRS 3-6), and the mortality rate was 26.9%. The difference was statistically significant compared with that in the non-rebleeding group. Unfavorable outcomes occurred more often in the rebleeding group. Conclusion IVH, WFNS grade V and CT Fisher grade 3-4 are associated with rebleeding. Demographic characteristics, medical history, clinical status, treatment timing, external ventricular drainage(EVD)or aneurysm characteristics are not significantly associated with rebleeding.

Key words: Intracranial aneurysm, Subarachnoid hemorrhage, Rebleeding, Influencing factors

中图分类号: 

  • R651
[1] Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL, Schweizer TA. Cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. Stroke, 2010, 41(8): e519-536. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.581975.
[2] Connolly ES Jr, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association[J]. Stroke, 2012, 43(6): 1711-1737.
[3] Rinkel GJ, Algra A. Long-term outcomes of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2011, 10(4): 349-356.
[4] Zhao B, Fan Y, Xiong Y, et al. Aneurysm rebleeding after poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: Predictors and impact on clinical outcomes[J]. Neurol Sci, 2016, 371: 62-66. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.10.020.
[5] Germans MR, Coert BA, Vandertop WP, et al. Time intervals from subarachnoid hemorrhage to rebleed[J]. Neurol, 2014, 261(7): 1425-1431.
[6] Wu TC, Tsui YK, Chen TY, et al. Rebleeding of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in computed tomography angiography: risk factor, rebleeding pattern, and outcome analysis[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2012, 36(1): 103-108.
[7] Starke RM, Connolly ES Jr. Participants in the international multi-disciplinary consensus conference on the critical care management of subarachnoid hemorrhage. rebleeding after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. Neurocrit Care, 2011, 5(2): 241-246.
[8] Osgood ML. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: review of the pathophysiology and management strategies[J]. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 2021, 21(9): 50.
[9] Guo LM, Zhou HY, Xu JW, et al. Risk factors related to aneurismal rebleeding[J]. World Neurosurg, 2011, 76(3-4): 292-298.
[10] De Marchis GM, Lantigua H, Schmidt JM, et al. Impact of premorbid hypertension on haemorrhage severity and aneurysm rebleeding risk after subarachnoid haemorrhage[J]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2014, 85(1): 56-59.
[11] Koopman I, Greving JP, van der Schaaf IC, et al. Aneurysm characteristics and risk of rebleeding after subarachnoid haemorrhage[J]. Eur Stroke J, 2019, 4(2): 153-159.
[12] Cha KC, Kim JH, Kang HI, et al. Aneurysmal rebleeding: factors associated with clinical outcome in the rebleeding patients[J]. J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 2010, 47(2): 119-123.
[13] Cagnazzo F, Gambacciani C, Morganti R, et al. Aneurysm rebleeding after placement of external ventricular drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Acta Neurochir(Wien), 2017, 159(4): 695-704.
[14] Cong W, Zhongxin Z, Tiangui L, et al. Risk factors for rebleeding of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage based on the analysis of on-admission information[J]. Turk Neurosurg, 2012, 22(6): 675-681.
[15] Linzey JR, Williamson C, Rajajee V, et al. Twenty-four-hour emergency intervention versus early intervention in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. J Neurosurg, 2018, 128(5): 1297-1303.
[16] Roelz R, Grauvogel J, Csok I, et al. Patterns of intracerebral hemorrhage that result in unfavorable outcomes in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2021, 205: 106603. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106603.
[17] Cooper JG, Smith B, Hassan TB. A retrospective review of sudden onset severe headache and subarachnoid haemorrhage on the clinical decision unit: looking for a needle in a haystack[J]. Eur J Emerg Med, 2016, 23(5): 356-362.
[18] Huang AP, Arora S, Wintermark M, et al. Perfusion computed tomographic imaging and surgical selection with patients after poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. Neurosurgery, 2010, 67(4): 964-974.
[19] 王立江, 段传志, 何旭英, 等. 血管内栓塞治疗颅内小动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血预后的研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2010, 48(2): 94-100. WANG Lijiang, DUAN Chuanzhi, HE Xuying, et al. Prognosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage due to small ruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by guglielmi detachable coils endovascular embolization[J]. Journal of Shandong University(Health Sciences), 2010, 48(2): 94-100.
[20] Sandström N, Yan B, Dowling R, et al. Comparison of microsurgery and endovascular treatment on clinical outcome following poor-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2013, 20(9): 1213-1218.
[21] Tang C, Zhang TS, Zhou LF. Risk factors for rebleeding of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(6): e99536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099536.
[22] Bederson JB, Connolly ES Jr, Batjer HH, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a statement for healthcare professionals from a special writing group of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association[J]. Stroke, 2009, 40(3): 994-1025.
[23] Szklener S, Melges A, Korchut A, et al. Predictive model for patients with poor-grade subarachnoid haemorrhage in 30-day observation: a 9-year cohort study[J]. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(6): e007795. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007795.
[24] Viarasilpa T, Ghosh P, Gidwani S, et al. Prognostic significance of sentinel headache preceding aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. World Neurosurg, 2020, 139: e672-e676. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.097.
[1] 许小芬,朱晓,马伟,李娜. 123例癌症患者癌性疼痛管理障碍的影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(9): 119-124.
[2] 侯茹男,邵頔,秦廷廷,尚美美,申玉珍,孙晓杰. 山东省癌症患者烟草使用情况及影响因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(6): 102-106.
[3] 赵思博,彭立,凌鸿翔. 农村老年人医疗保险参与和自杀风险的关系[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(4): 113-118.
[4] 韩璇,孙秀彬,刘铱,王淑康,刘静,袁中尚,张涛,李秀君,薛付忠,刘云霞. 预防医学专业学生《卫生统计学》学习满意度评价[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(3): 109-113.
[5] 苏永刚,王睿,杨同卫. 健康中国视域下老年人群自杀的影响因素及预防对策[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(2): 8-13.
[6] 邹丽萍,贺玉静,谢元忠,赵建云,许春华,马永胜,李传彬,刘晓雪,刘翀,赵小冬,孙红云. 济南市1 614名HBsAg阳性产妇新生儿首针乙肝疫苗接种时间分布及影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 113-120.
[7] 于书卷,王美娟,陈丽,曹英娟,吕晓燕,刘雪燕,林鹏,颜景政. 老年2型糖尿病患者轻度认知功能障碍的影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 108-112.
[8] 王春霞,贺梦璐,王海鹏,李慧. 山东省农村地区多重慢病患者多重用药现状及影响因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(1): 93-100.
[9] 王超,张艺琳,邹广顺,吕军城. 686名医学生有无自杀意念调查及影响因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(1): 78-85.
[10] 毕凤英,闫冬勤,陈曦,罗丹. HIV感染者/艾滋病患者自杀死亡危险因素理论框架构建——基于扎根理论的定性研究[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(1): 109-117.
[11] 张艺琳,王超,邹广顺,吕军城. 医学生生命意义感与自杀意念的关系[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(11): 93-99.
[12] 王晓璇,朱高培,孙娜,冯佳宁,肖宇飞,石福艳,王素珍. 东明县三春集镇贫困人群健康状况及影响因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(1): 108-114.
[13] 李向一,王清亮,张永媛,刘盈君,费剑春,杨杰,张义. 基于广义估计方程的某三甲医院超长住院日影响因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(1): 102-107.
[14] 范嘉音,赵迪,郭磊,贾莉英. 山东省三地家庭卫生筹资公平性探讨[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(9): 89-94.
[15] 尹周一,张凤梅,王梦圆,刘西瑶,池岩娜,高莉洁,王志萍. 孕前叶酸增补依从性及其影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(5): 115-120.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 索东阳,申飞,郭皓,刘力畅,杨惠敏,杨向东. Tim-3在药物性急性肾损伤动物模型中的表达及作用机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 1 -6 .
[2] 马青源,蒲沛东,韩飞,王超,朱洲均,王维山,史晨辉. miR-27b-3p调控SMAD1对骨肉瘤细胞增殖、迁移和侵袭作用的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 32 -37 .
[3] 张宝文,雷香丽,李瑾娜,罗湘俊,邹容. miR-21-5p靶向调控TIMP3抑制2型糖尿病肾病小鼠肾脏系膜细胞增殖及细胞外基质堆积[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 7 -14 .
[4] 付洁琦,张曼,张晓璐,李卉,陈红. Toll样受体4抑制过氧化物酶体增殖物激活受体γ加重血脂蓄积的分子机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 24 -31 .
[5] 龙婷婷,谢明,周璐,朱俊德. Noggin蛋白对小鼠脑缺血再灌注损伤后学习和记忆能力与齿状回结构的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 15 -23 .
[6] 李宁,李娟,谢艳,李培龙,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 长链非编码RNA AL109955.1在80例结直肠癌组织中的表达及对细胞增殖与迁移侵袭的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 38 -46 .
[7] 徐玉香,刘煜东,张蓬,段瑞生. 101例脑小血管病患者脑微出血危险因素的回顾性分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 67 -71 .
[8] 丁祥云,于清梅,张文芳,庄园,郝晶. 胰岛素样生长因子II在84例多囊卵巢综合征患者颗粒细胞中的表达和促排卵结局的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 60 -66 .
[9] 肖娟,肖强,丛伟,李婷,丁守銮,张媛,邵纯纯,吴梅,刘佳宁,贾红英. 两种甲状腺超声数据报告系统诊断效能的比较[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 53 -59 .
[10] 史爽,李娟,米琦,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 胃癌miRNAs预后风险评分模型的构建与应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 47 -52 .
版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学学报(医学版)》编辑部　
地址:山东大学科技期刊社（济南市历城区山大南路27号山东大学中心校区明德楼B座721室） 电话: 0531-88366918 E-mail: xbyxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发