人体成分分析仪在评估MHD患者干体重中的临床研究  

Clinical study of body composition analyser in assessing dry weight in MHD patients

作　　者：徐文祥 杨天蓓 李荣惠 陈健 XU Wenxiang;YANG Tianbei;LI Ronghui;CHEN Jian(The Department of Nephrology,Qianrinan State Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital,Qianrinan State,Guizhou562400,China)

机构地区：[1]黔西南州中医医院肾病科,贵州黔西南州562400

出　　处：《社区医学杂志》2024年第24期838-841,853,共5页Journal Of Community Medicine

基　　金：贵州省黔西南州基础研究计划项目(20220QXN27734)。

摘　　要：目的研究采用人体成分分析仪评估干体重在维持性血液透析患者中的临床应用价值。方法选取2023-01-01-2023-12-31黔西南州中医院100例血液透析中心每周规律行维持性血液透析治疗3次,且≥3个月透龄患者,根据人体成分分析仪评估所有患者干体重,以测量水负荷与临床实际超滤量差值随机分组,差值≥300 mL为A组(n=50),差值<300 mL为B组(n=50),分别收集2组营养状况指标及发生不良反应(高血压、低血压、心衰、肌肉痛性痉挛、透析中头痛及透后疲劳等)的次数,通过数据分析比较2组营养状况指标及发生不良反应的差异性。结果2组患者营养指标的评分进行监测和对比,A组患者的血红蛋白(Hb)值为(95±10.62)g/L,B组患者的Hb值为(105.11±9.52)g/L,差异有统计学意义,t=2.364,P=0.006;A组患者的白蛋白(ALB)值为(30.91±3.24)g/L,B组患者的ALB值为(34.32±2.65)g/L,差异有统计学意义,t=5.518,P=0.002;A组患者的前白蛋白(PA)值为(258.13±29.56)mg/L,B组患者的PA值为(289.42±30.47)mg/L,差异有统计学意义,t=9.765,P=0.001;A组患者的转铁蛋白(TRF)值为(11.54±2.73)mg/L,B组患者的TRF值为(15.16±2.65)mg/L,差异有统计学意义,t=3.416,P=0.004。根据2组患者不良反应发生率比较结果显示,A组有21例患者发生不良反应,总发生率为42.00%;B组有7例患者发生不良反应,总发生率为14.00%,A组不良反应发生率明显高于B组,差异有统计学意义,χ^(2)=9.391,P=0.007。结论人体成分分析仪测定的水负荷和血液透析患者真实的水负荷相符合,能够实现对维持性血液透析患者干体重的便捷且精确评估,科学严谨地反映了患者的实际干体重状态。此外,在评估维持性血液透析患者的营养状况方面,同样展现出了极高的应用价值。Objective To evaluate the clinical utility of dry weight assessment using a body composition analyzer in maintenance hemodialysis patients.Methods A total of 100 patients undergoing regular maintenance hemodialysis three times a week at the Hemodialysis Center of Qianxinan State Traditional Medicine Hospital from January 1,2023,to December 31,2023,was selected.All patients were assessed dry weight using a body composition analyzer,and the difference between the measured water load and the actual ultrafiltration volume in clinical practice was used to randomly divide the into two groups:Group A(n=50)with a difference of≥300 ml and Group B with a difference of<300 ml(n=50).Nutritional status indicators the occurrence of adverse reactions(hypertension,hypotension,heart failure,muscle pain,dialysis beadache,and post-dialysis fatigue)were collected each group.Data analysis was performed to compare the nutritional status indicators and the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups.Results The monitoring and comparison of the indicators of the two groups of patients yielded the following results:The Hb value of Group A was(95±10.62)g/l,that of Group B was(105.11±9.52)g/l,t=2.364,P=0006;The ALB value of Group A was(30.91±3.24)g/l,while that of Group was(34.32±2.65)g/l,t=5.518,P=0.002;The PA value of Group A was(258.13±29.56)mg/l,while that of Group B was(89,42±30.47)mg/l,t=9.765,P=0.001;The TRF value of Group A was(11.54±2,73)mg/l,while that of Group B was(15.16±2.65)mg/l,t=3.416,P=0.004.Additionally,the comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups showed that 21 patients in Group A experienced adverse reactions,with an incidence of 42.00%,while 7 patients in Group B experienced adverse reactions,with a total incidence of 14.00%,Incidence of adverse reactions in Group A was significantly higher than in Group B,χ^(2)=9.391,P=0.007.Conclusions The water load measured by the body composition analyzer are consistent with the actual water load of hemodialysis,allowing for con

关 键 词：人体成分分析仪 维持性血液透析 干体重 临床研究 

分 类 号：R459.5[医药卫生—治疗学]