PDF下载 ( 2157 KB)
Clinical and prognostic features of children with acute pancreatitis:A retrospective analysis of 105 cases
-
摘要: 目的分析小儿急性胰腺炎（AP）的病因及临床特点。方法选取2013年1月-2018年12月西南医科大学附属医院收治的105例小儿AP患者为研究对象。根据严重程度分为轻型急性胰腺炎（MAP）（n=77）,中度重型急性胰腺炎（MSAP）（n=25）,重型急性胰腺炎（SAP）（n=3）,对比分析MAP组与MSAP组间低年龄组（2～9岁）（n=36）与高年龄组（10～17岁）（n=69）及复发组（n=17）与非复发（n=88）的临床特征。从数据库随机抽取成人初发AP 105例作为对照组,对比各组患者的基本资料、病因、实验室指标、病情严重程度、并发症、治疗结局。符合正态分布的计量资料2组间比较采用t检验,方差不齐时采用校正t检验;非正态分布数据及等级资料组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验;计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验,单向有序分类采用趋势χ2检验,双向有序分类变量采用Goodman-Kruskal Gamma分析;对于累计风险的比较采用Kaplan-Meier法及log-rank检验。结果 105例AP患儿中,主要病因包括特发性31例（29. 5%）、胆源性27例（25. 7%）、外伤2...Abstract: Objective To investigate the etiology and clinical features of acute pancreatitis(AP) in children. Methods A total of 105 children with AP who were admitted to The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University from January 2013 to December 2018 were enrolled,and according to the severity of AP,they were divided into mild acute pancreatitis(MAP) group with 77 children,moderate-severe acute pancreatitis(MSAP) group with 25 children,and severe acute pancreatitis(SAP) group with 3 children,and a comparative analysis was performed for the MAP group and the MSAP group. According to age,the children were divided into young age group with 36 children aged 2-9 years and old age group with 69 children aged 10-17 years,and according to the presence or absence of recurrence,they were divided into recurrence group with 17 children and non-recurrence group with 88 children; a comparative analysis was also performed. A total of 105 adults with incipient AP were randomly selected from databases and were enrolled as control group,and the groups were compared in terms of general data,etiology,laboratory markers,disease severity,complications,and treatment outcome. The t-test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between groups,and the corrected t-test was used in case of heterogeneity of variance; the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed data and ranked data between groups; the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups; the trend chi-square test was used for unidirectional ordered categorical variables,and a Goodman-Kruskal Gamma analysis was used for bidirectional ordered categorical variables; the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used for the comparison of cumulative risk. Results As for etiology,among the 105 children with AP,31(29. 5%) had idiopathic AP,27(25. 7%) had biliary AP,20(19. 0%) had trauma,11(10. 5%) had hyperlipidemic AP,10(9. 5%) had viral infection,and 6(5. 7%) had drug-induced AP,and there was a significant difference in the constituent ratio of etiology between the pediatric patients and the adult patients(χ2= 99. 282,P < 0. 001). Compared with the adult patients,the pediatric patients had significantly lower severity(Z =-2. 325,P < 0. 02) and proportion of individuals with pancreatic necrosis(3. 8% vs 12. 4%,χ2=5. 184,P < 0. 023). Compared with the MSAP group at 24 hours after admission,the MAP group had significantly lower C-reactive protein,blood lipase,white blood cell count,and blood glucose(Z =-6. 406,-3. 096,and-2. 762,t = 3. 298,all P < 0. 05) and a significantly higher blood calcium level(t = 3. 43,P = 0. 001). During follow-up,17 children(16. 2%) developed AP again,and the recurrence rate increased with an increase in disease severity(χ2= 6. 503,P = 0. 011). Recurrent AP was often observed in girls(82. 4%)(χ2= 12. 241,P < 0. 001),and the children with first-onset AP and pancreatic necrosis had a higher recurrence rate(χ2= 6. 572,P =0. 01). Hyperlipidemia was the most common cause of acute recurrent pancreatitis(ARP) in children(χ2= 5. 533,P = 0. 019),and hyperlipidemic AP had the highest risk of recurrence over time,while viral and drug-induced AP had the lowest risk of recurrence(P =0. 028). Conclusion Idiopathic and biliary AP are the main causes of AP in children,and compared with adults,children tend to have milder disease conditions and a better prognosis. Female sex and first-onset AP with pancreatic necrosis and hyperlipidemia are high-risk factors for ARP.
-
Key words:
- pancreatitis /
- incidence /
- child /
- prognosis
-
原发性胆汁性胆管炎(PBC)是一种慢性进行性的胆汁淤积性肝病，90%以上的患者血清抗线粒体抗体(AMA)阳性，部分患者血清IgM水平升高，随着病情的缓解而有所下降[1]，因此明确IgM水平与PBC发生、发展及转归的关系，对于指导PBC治疗及预后评估具有重要的临床意义。
1. 资料与方法
1.1 研究对象
选取2010年1月—2020年1月于解放军总医院第五医学中心就诊的熊去氧胆酸(UDCA)初治PBC患者637例，所有患者均具有治疗1年以上的临床数据。纳入标准：(1)符合PBC诊断标准[2-3]；(2)UDCA规范治疗(13~15 mg/kg)1年以上。排除标准：(1)合并其他的慢性肝病；(2)肝移植术后；(3)合并其他免疫性疾病、恶性肿瘤及感染性疾病；(4)资料不完整。
1.2 研究方法
采用回顾性分析的方法，采集患者性别、年龄及入院基线的血液学指标、生化指标、免疫学指标及影像学指标；并根据巴黎标准进行UDCA疗效判定[4-5]，将PBC患者分为UDCA完全应答组和UDCA应答不良组(包括无应答及部分应答)。
1.3 统计学方法
应用SPSS 22.0软件进行统计学分析。计量资料进行S-K正态性检验，符合正态分布的计量资料用x±s表示，两组间比较采用独立样本t检验；非正态分布的计量资料用M(P25~P75)表示，两组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。计数资料两组间比较采用χ2检验。绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)，根据ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评估其预测效能，计算约登指数确定最佳临界值。亚组分析使用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH)检验，并绘制风险值森林图。P＜0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2. 结果
2.1 一般情况
本研究共纳入PBC患者637例，其中男126例，女511例，平均56岁(50~66岁)，基线IgM升高者357例(56.0%)，UDCA完全应答者436例(68.4%)，其他基线资料见表 1。
表 1 PBC患者基线特征及UDCA治疗1年后的应答情况Table 1. Characteristics of patients with PBC at baseline and biochemical response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment基线特征 数值 性别[例(%)] 男 126(19.8) 女 511(80.2) 发病年龄(岁) 56(50~66) 肝硬化[例(%)] 487(76.5) PLT(×109/L) 121(77~182) Alb(g/L) 35(31~38) TBil(μmol/L) 20.7(13.8~38.2) ALT(U/L) 53(27~95) AST(U/L) 69(41~105) ALP(U/L) 247(158~432) GGT(U/L) 163(81~374) TBA(μmol/L) 28(12~65) ChE(U/L) 4405(2922~5947) TC(mmol/L) 4.4(3.3~5.8) PT(s) 11.6(10.5~12.9) INR 1.01(0.94~1.12) IgA(g/L) 2.68(1.84~3.87) IgG(g/L) 15.67(12.83~20.41) IgM(g/L) 2.76(1.61~4.43) IgM＞ULN[例(%)] 357(56.0) ANA阳性[例(%)] 469(73.6) 抗Sp100阳性[例(%)] 94(14.8) 抗Gp210阳性[例(%)] 218(34.2) MRS[6] 5.84±1.45 Globe评分[7] 1.21(0.34~2.11) UK-PBC评分[8] 0.037(0.015~0.112) UDCA治疗1年[例(%)] 完全应答 436(68.4) 应答不良 201(31.6) 注：TBA，总胆汁酸；ChE，胆碱酯酶。 2.2 UDCA不同疗效的基线临床资料比较
按照UDCA治疗应答情况，637例患者中436例发生完全应答，201例为应答不良。性别分布中，完全应答组与应答不良组分布无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)，基线存在肝硬化的患者UDCA应答率更高(78.9% vs 71.1%，P=0.032)，生化指标中，TBil、AST、ALP、TBA和TC在两组间存在统计学差异(P值均＜0.001)。免疫指标中，应答不良组IgA、IgM水平及抗Gp210阳性率均较高(P值均＜0.05)。预后风险评分中，应答不良组MRS、Globe评分、UK-PBC评分均高于完全应答组(P值均＜0.001)(表 2)。
表 2 UDCA治疗完全应答与应答不良患者基线指标及风险评分差异Table 2. Differences of baseline characteristics and risk scores between PBC with complete response and poor response to UDCA treatment指标 UDCA完全应答组(n=436) UDCA应答不良组(n=201) 统计值 P值 性别[例(%)] χ2=3.112 0.078 男 78(17.9) 48(23.9) 女 358(82.1) 153(76.1) 年龄(岁) 57(50~66) 54(49~65) Z=-1.447 0.148 肝硬化[例(%)] 344(78.9) 143(71.1) χ2=4.596 0.032 TBil(μmol/L) 17.5(12.1~26.1) 39.2(20.6~62.7) Z=-9.932 ＜0.001 AST(U/L) 55(38~87) 99(69~135) Z=-8.931 ＜0.001 ALP(U/L) 201(150~340) 390(237~599) Z=-8.361 ＜0.001 TBA(μmol/L) 22(9~43) 54(20~121) Z=-7.836 ＜0.001 TC(mmol/L) 4.2(3.2~5.3) 5.1(3.5~7.1) Z=-4.694 ＜0.001 IgA(g/L) 2.55(1.75~3.61) 3.01(2.01~4.38) Z=-3.242 0.001 IgG(g/L) 15.59(12.63~20.50) 15.73(12.97~20.16) Z=-0.227 0.821 IgM(g/L) 2.60(1.56~4.30) 3.33(1.78~5.02) Z=-2.115 0.034 ANA阳性[例(%)] 313(71.8) 156(77.6) χ2=2.402 0.121 抗Sp100阳性[例(%)] 66(15.1) 28(13.9) χ2=0.159 0.690 抗Gp210阳性[例(%)] 127(29.1) 91(45.3) χ2=15.931 ＜0.001 MRS 5.68±1.45 6.18±1.41 t=4.092 ＜0.001 Globe评分 0.83(0.14~1.66) 2.09(1.29~2.81) Z=-10.910 ＜0.001 UK-PBC评分 0.025(0.012~0.058) 0.128(0.050~0.324) Z=-11.646 ＜0.001 2.3 不同IgM水平PBC患者临床特征及UDCA疗效比较
2.3.1 IgM升高与IgM正常PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异
按照IgM升高与IgM正常将PBC患者分为两组，分析患者基线特征及治疗应答。性别分布、年龄、肝硬化占比在两组中比较差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)；生化指标中，AST、ALP、TC在IgM升高组显著高于IgM正常组(P值均＜0.001)；免疫指标中，IgA、IgG水平及抗Gp210阳性率在IgM升高组显著高于IgM正常组(P值均＜0.05)，但两组在UDCA治疗应答方面并无统计学差异(P＞0.05)(表 3)。
表 3 IgM升高与IgM正常的PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异Table 3. Differences of baseline characteristics and biochemical response to UDCA treatment between IgM-normal and IgM-elevated PBC指标 IgM升高组(n=357) IgM正常组(n=280) 统计值 P值 性别[例(%)] χ2=0.525 0.469 男 67(18.8) 59(21.1) 女 290(81.2) 221(78.9) 年龄(岁) 55(49~65) 57(50~67) Z=-1.776 0.076 肝硬化[例(%)] 275(77.0) 212(75.7) χ2=0.151 0.698 TBil(μmol/L) 20.4(14.0~38.2) 21.1(13.6~38.6) Z=-0.066 0.947 AST(U/L) 75(45~106) 55(35~100) Z=-3.774 ＜0.001 ALP(U/L) 275(173~478) 201(144~347) Z=-5.063 ＜0.001 TBA(μmol/L) 29(13~60) 28(11~70) Z=-0.587 0.558 TC(mmol/L) 4.8(3.6~6.2) 4.2(3.1~5.3) Z=-4.344 ＜0.001 IgA(g/L) 2.83(1.96~3.91) 2.53(1.70~3.82) Z=-2.051 0.040 IgG(g/L) 16.88(14.00~21.42) 14.04(11.87~18.50) Z=-6.144 ＜0.001 ANA阳性[例(%)] 270(75.6) 199(71.1) χ2=1.680 0.195 抗Sp100阳性[例(%)] 56(15.7) 38(13.6) χ2=0.558 0.455 抗Gp210阳性[例(%)] 152(42.6) 66(23.6) χ2=25.180 ＜0.001 MRS 5.78±1.46 5.91±1.43 t=-1.071 0.284 Globe评分 1.18(0.29~2.12) 1.27(0.36~2.07) Z=-0.433 0.665 UK-PBC评分 0.038(0.015~0.114) 0.037(0.015~0.108) Z=-0.416 0.677 UDCA治疗1年[例(%)] χ2=2.580 0.108 完全应答 235(65.8) 201(71.8) 应答不良 122(34.2) 79(28.2) 2.3.2 应用ROC曲线确定IgM最佳临界值
将各项基线指标进行ROC曲线分析(图 1，表 4)，结果显示预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的生化指标包括TBil、AST、ALP、TBA、TC，免疫指标包括IgA、IgM、IgG，计算IgM最佳临界值为1.5×ULN。
图 1 PBC患者基线指标预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的ROC曲线Figure 1. ROC curves of characteristics at baseline in predicting poor response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment表 4 PBC患者基线指标预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的AUCTable 4. AUC values of characteristics at baseline in predicting poor biochemical response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment指标 AUC 95%CI TBil 0.745 0.709~0.778 AST 0.720 0.683~0.755 ALP 0.706 0.669~0.741 TBA 0.693 0.655~0.728 TC 0.615 0.576~0.653 IgA 0.576 0.537~0.615 IgM 0.552 0.512~0.591 IgG 0.505 0.466~0.545 2.3.3 分析不同IgM水平PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异
根据IgM预测UDCA应答不良的最佳临界值将患者分为IgM≥1.5×ULN及IgM＜1.5×ULN两组，性别分布、年龄、肝硬化占比在两组中比较差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)；IgM≥1.5×ULN组AST、ALP、TC显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(P值均＜0.05)；IgM≥1.5×ULN组IgG水平及抗Gp210阳性率显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(P值均＜0.001)。IgM≥1.5×ULN组经过UDCA治疗后发生应答不良患者显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(38.3% vs 27.1%，P=0.003)(表 5)。
表 5 不同IgM水平PBC患者基线临床特征及UDCA疗效比较Table 5. Comparison of baseline characteristics and the outcome of UDCA treatment between PBC with different levels of IgM指标 IgM≥1.5×ULN组(n=253) IgM＜1.5×ULN组(n=384) 统计值 P值 性别[例(%)] χ2=0.038 0.846 男 51(20.2) 75(19.5) 女 202(79.8) 309(80.5) 年龄(岁) 56(49~65) 56(50~66) Z=-1.077 0.281 肝硬化[例(%)] 195(77.1) 292(76.0) χ2=0.090 0.764 TBil(μmol/L) 21.0(14.3~38.0) 20.5(13.6~39.7) Z=-0.244 0.808 AST(U/L) 78(46~112) 61(38~99) Z=-4.193 ＜0.001 ALP(U/L) 288(179~492) 210(150~358) Z=-5.044 ＜0.001 TBA(μmol/L) 28(13~57) 28(10~70) Z=-0.210 0.834 TC(mmol/L) 4.8(3.6~6.3) 4.3(3.2~5.5) Z=-3.250 0.001 IgA(g/L) 2.81(1.90~3.85) 2.63(1.76~3.87) Z=-1.021 0.307 IgG(g/L) 17.60(14.09~22.10) 14.89(12.15~19.32) Z=-5.465 ＜0.001 ANA阳性[例(%)] 192(75.9) 277(72.1) χ2=1.107 0.293 抗Sp100阳性[例(%)] 44(17.4) 50(13.0) χ2=2.316 0.128 抗Gp210阳性[例(%)] 116(45.8) 102(26.6) χ2=25.204 ＜0.001 MRS 5.71±1.43 5.92±1.46 t=-1.792 0.074 Globe评分 1.17(0.36~2.14) 1.28(0.29~2.07) Z=-0.161 0.872 UK-PBC评分 0.038(0.014~0.119) 0.037(0.015~0.109) Z=-0.481 0.631 UDCA治疗1年[例(%)] χ2=8.948 0.003 完全应答 156(61.7) 280(72.9) 应答不良 97(38.3) 104(27.1) 2.4 不同IgM水平预测应答不良的风险分析森林图
对IgM≥1.5×ULN组及IgM＜1.5×ULN组两组的各项指标进行预测应答不良的风险值分析，结果显示IgM≥1.5×ULN组相对IgM＜1.5×ULN组预测整体应答不良的风险值为1.416 (95%CI：1.129~1.776, P=0.003)。亚组分析中，无肝硬化患者，IgM≥1.5×ULN预测应答不良风险值为1.821(95%CI：1.224~2.711, P=0.003)。其他情况详见图 2。
图 2 IgM≥1.5×ULN相对IgM＜1.5×ULN预测治疗应答情况亚组分析森林图Figure 2. Forest plot for subgroup analysis by IgM≥1.5×ULN versus IgM < 1.5×ULN in predicting treatment response of UDCA3. 讨论
IgM具有强大的杀菌、激活补体、免疫调理和凝集作用，通常出现在初次体液免疫应答的最早阶段，是连接固有免疫和获得性免疫的纽带，也参与某些自身免疫疾病和超敏反应的病理过程。PBC是一种器官特异性的自身免疫性疾病，IgM升高是PBC典型的血清学特征之一，但是其升高的机制至今尚未完全阐明，外源微生物的分子模拟、免疫耐受性的破坏、免疫功能紊乱可能是导致高IgM水平的重要原因[9-10]，IgM在PBC疾病进程中可能发挥免疫调节及免疫损伤的双重作用[9]。不同于PBC，自身免疫性肝炎(AIH)患者以IgG升高为主，其水平随着病情缓解而逐渐下降，IgG是AIH疾病转归的重要监测指标之一。作为PBC常规检测项目，IgM并未被国内外指南纳入诊疗和预后评估的指标。IgM在PBC发生、发展、疗效及转归中是否具有预测价值，目前尚缺乏大量的临床研究结果作为指导。
UDCA是PBC治疗的一线药物，可显著改善部分PBC患者非肝移植存活率[11-12]，但仍有30%~40%的患者对UDCA治疗无应答，本研究中显示UDCA完全应答率为68.4%，对于这部分患者需要及时联合一种或两种二线药物来改善胆汁淤积以预防疾病进展[13]。UDCA治疗可能影响IgM水平，研究[14]发现UDCA能够显著降低细菌CpG诱导的总IgM和IgM-AMA的产生，但对IgG-AMA的水平却无影响。IgM与肝硬化相关症状和肝脏相关事件的发生关系密切，在UDCA联合苯扎贝特治疗过程中，不论ALP及GGT下降与否，当IgM水平持续异常时，患者的预后均较差，其生存期显著低于IgM水平正常化的患者，治疗过程中IgM水平的逐步正常化可能提示预后较好[15]。对于UDCA不完全应答的PBC患者，在给予联合利妥昔单抗治疗后，IgM水平随着肝功能指标的好转而逐步下降[16]。IgM正常化可作为长期预后的预测指标，但初始IgM正常患者IgM水平的变化情况及预测因素尚缺乏研究。在本研究中，UDCA治疗基线IgM平均水平为2.76 g/L，IgM升高的占比为56.0%，在UDCA完全应答组与应答不良组之间，基线IgM水平存在显著性差异(P=0.034)，进一步分析IgM升高与IgM正常组患者的临床特征及在UDCA治疗1年后的疗效差异，发现IgM正常组UDCA应答率高于IgM升高组(71.8% vs 65.8%)，但两组差异无统计学意义(P=0.108)，通过ROC曲线分析获得IgM预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良风险的最佳临界值(1.5×ULN)，按最佳临界值进行分组后，结果显示IgM＜1.5×ULN组的PBC患者发生UDCA应答率显著高于IgM≥1.5×ULN组(72.9% vs 61.7%, P=0.003)，IgM≥1.5×ULN组发生UDCA应答不良风险是前者的1.416倍(95%CI: 1.129~1.776)，因此基线IgM水平可能有助于预测PBC治疗应答。
IgM是进展期PBC的危险因素，与PBC胆管损伤及纤维化密切相关。进展期PBC的肝组织中IgM表达水平显著升高[17]，在胆道闭锁的患儿中，靶向胆管上皮细胞的IgM自身抗体能够激活补体并参与肝纤维化的发生，从而使疾病不断进展[18-19]。在本研究中血清IgM升高组的PBC患者，其肝硬化占比也偏高，因是回顾性研究，患者缺乏UDCA治疗基线及治疗后的组织学证据，无法评估IgM与疾病进展、转归之间的相关性，今后尚需要进一步完善。
UDCA生化应答的PBC患者具有较好的预后，即使进展为肝硬化的患者，如仍处于代偿期，也可达到延长生存期、降低肝病相关病死率及肝移植需求的目标[20]。MRS是一种常用的预测生存概率模型，最初用于筛选肝移植对象和确定肝移植手术时机[6]，MRS对于失代偿期肝硬化的PBC患者也具有较强的预测性。UK-PBC评分[8]及GLOBE评分[7]是近年来被采用的PBC预后模型。在接受UDCA治疗的PBC患者中，MRS、UK-PBC评分和GLOBE评分对患者肝移植或死亡的风险预测均具有较好的准确性[21]。本研究结果显示MRS、Globe评分、UK-PBC评分在UDCA完全应答组及应答不良组之间均具有显著性差异，提示UDCA完全应答组的非肝移植存活率均显著高于应答不良组，但在IgM升高组和正常组之间以及IgM≥1.5×ULN组和IgM＜1.5×ULN组之间，三种预测模型评分均无明显差异，这说明基线IgM水平还不能作为独立预测非肝移植存活率的指标。
总之，本研究结果提示基线IgM水平对于预测UDCA应答具有重要价值，基线IgM水平较高的PBC患者，治疗中应密切监测IgM水平，如持续异常，应及时联合二线药物治疗。
-
[1] ABU-EL-HAIJA M,KUMAR S,QUIROS JA,et al. Management of acute pancreatitis in the pediatric population:A clinical report from the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,Hepatology and Nutrition Pancreas Committee[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2018,66(1):159-176. [2] HUSAIN SZ,SRINATH AI. What’s unique about acute pancreatitis in children:Risk factors,diagnosis and management[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol,2017,14(6):366-372. [3] ZHAO ZQ,XI Z,YAN PF. Clinical value of combined detection of amylase,lipase and procalcitonin in the diagnosis of children with acute pancreatitis[J]. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Ther,2017,22(11):1265-1268.(in Chinese)赵志强,席錾,闫鹏飞.血清脂肪酶、血清淀粉酶与血清降钙素原在儿童急性胰腺炎诊断中的意义[J].中国临床药理学与治疗学,2017,22(11):1265-1268. [4] BANKS PA,BOLLEN TL,DERVENIS C,et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012:Revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus[J]. Gut,2013.62(1):102-111. [5] PARNICZKY A,ABU-EL-HAIJA M,HUSAIN S,et al. EPC/HPSG evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric pancreatitis[J]. Pancreatology,2018,18(2):146-160. [6] MORINVILLE VD,HUSAIN SZ,BAI H,et al. Definitions of pediatric pancreatitis and survey of present clinical practices[J].J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2012,55(3):261-265. [7] BAI HX,LOWE ME,HUSAIN SZ. What have we learned about acute pancreatitis in children?[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2011,52(3):262-270. [8] RESTREPO R,HAGEROTT HE,KULKARNI S,et al. Acute pancreatitis in pediatric patients:Demographics, etiology,and diagnostic imaging[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol,2016,206(3):632-644. [9] FAYYAZ Z,SULEMAN H,HASHMI MA,et al. Clinical presentation,aetiology and complications of pancreatitis in children[J]. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad,2015,27:628-632. [10] GRZYBOWSKA-CHLEBOWCZYK U,JASIELSKA M,FLAKWANCERZ A,et al. Acute pancreatitis in children[J]. Prz Gastroenterol,2018,13(1):69-75. [11] PANT C,DESHPANDE A,SFERRA TJ,et al. Emergency department visits for acute pancreatitis in children:Results from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample 2006-2011[J]. J Investig Med,2015,63(4):646-648. [12] ABU-EL-HAIJA M,EL-DIKA S,HINTON A,et al. Acute pancreatitis admission trends:A national estimate through the kids'inpatient database[J]. J Pediatr,2018,194:147-151. e1. [13] MAJBAR AA,CUSICK E,JOHNSON P,et al. Incidence and clinical associations of childhood acute pancreatitis[J]. Pediatrics,2016,138(3). pii:e20161198. [14] PODDAR U,YACHHA SK,BORKAR V,et al. A Report of 320cases of childhood pancreatitis:Increasing incidence,etiologic categorization,dynamics,severity assessment,and outcome[J]. Pancreas,2017,46(1):110-115. [15] PARK A,LATIF S U,SHAH AU,et al. Changing referral trends of acute pancreatitis in children:A 12-year singlecenter analysis[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2009,49(3):316-322. [16] SWEENY KF,LIN TK,NATHAN JD,et al. Rapid progression of acute pancreatitis to acute recurrent pancreatitis in children[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2019,68(1):104-109. [17] YU XY. Clinical characteristics,diagnosis and treatment of 65cases of acute pancreatitis in children[J]. Anhui Med,2015,36(5):576-579.(in Chinese)余溪洋.小儿急性胰腺炎65例临床特点及诊治分析[J].安徽医学,2015,36(5):576-579. [18] HU B,WANG XY. Etiology,diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis in 93 children[J]. Chin J Surg Integr Tradit West Med,2016,22(6):583-585.(in Chinese)胡博,王晓晔. 93例儿童急性胰腺炎病因和诊治分析[J].中国中西医结合外科杂志,2016,22(6):583-585. [19] KSIADZYNA D. Drug-induced acute pancreatitis related to medications commonly used in gastroenterology[J]. Eur J Intern Med,2011,22(1):20-25. [20] ZHU Y,PAN X,ZENG H,et al. A study on the etiology,severity,and mortality of 3260 patients with acute pancreatitis according to the revised atlanta classification in Jiangxi,China over an 8-year period[J]. Pancreas,2017,46(4):504-509. [21] GUO YJ. Meta analysis of etiology and clinical characteristics of recurrent acute pancreatitis in China in recent ten years[J].Chin J Pancreatol,2017,17(4):231-237.(in Chinese)郭英杰.中国近十年复发性急性胰腺炎病因及临床特征的Meta分析[J].中华胰腺病杂志,2017,17(4):231-237. [22] GAO F,YAN Z,ZHANG J. The relationship between the level of triglyceride and the severity of acute hypertriglyceridemia pancreatitis[J]. J Clin Hepatol,2018,34(11):2360-2363.(in Chinese)高峰,闫真,张杰.甘油三酯水平与急性高甘油三酯血症性胰腺炎严重程度的关系[J].临床肝胆病杂志,2018,34(11):2360-2363. [23] RAIZNER A,PHATAK UP,BAKER K,et al. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis in children[J]. J Pediatr,2013,162(4):788-792. [24] PARK AJ,LATIF SU,AHMAD MU,et al. A comparison of presentation and management trends in acute pancreatitis between infants/toddlers and older children[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2010,51(2):167-170. [25] COLE S,WAKEHAM M,WERLIN S,et al. Classification and nutrition management of acute pancreatitis in the pediatric intensive care unit[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2018,67(6):755-759. [26] ABU-EL-HAIJA M,UC A,WERLIN SL,et al. Nutritional considerations in pediatric pancreatitis:A position paper from the NASPHAN pancreas committee and ESPHAN cystic fibrosis/pancreas working group[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2018,67(1):131-143. [27] ABU-EL-HAIJA M,LIN TK,NATHAN JD. Management of acute pancreatitis in children[J]. Curr Opin Pediatr,2017,29(5):592-597. [28] ALABDULKAREEM A,ALMAHMOUD T,AL-TAHAN H,et al.Etiology and clinical characteristics of pediatric acute pancreatitis in Saudi Arabia:A 20-year experience from a single tertiary center[J]. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med,2018,5(1):13-17. [29] UC AHUSAIN SZ. Pancreatitis in children[J]. Gastroenterology,2019,156(7):1969-1978. [30] HU JF,LU LG. Epidemiological characteristics,pathogenesis,diagnosis and treatment of alcoholic pancreatitis[J]. J Clin Hepatol,2019,35(2):448-450.(in Chinese)胡江峰,陆伦根.酒精性胰腺炎的流行病学特征、发病机制及诊疗进展[J].临床肝胆病杂志,2019,35(2):448-450. [31] PANT C,SFERRA TJ,LEE BR,et al. Acute recurrent pancreatitis in children:A study from the pediatric health information system[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr,2016,62(3):450-452. [32] SHUKLA-UDAWATTA M,MADANI SKAMAT D. An update on pediatric pancreatitis[J]. Pediatr Ann,2017,46(5):e207-e211. [33] ABU-EL-HAIJA M,VALENCIA CA,HORNUNG L,et al.Genetic variants in acute,acute recurrent and chronic pancreatitis affect the progression of disease in children[J]. Pancreatology,2019,19(4):535-540. 期刊类型引用(7)
1. 张玉婷，李嘉泰，宋晓静，丁方回，岳平，闫少林，李俊峰，张立婷，李汛. 不同IgM水平的原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者治疗应答及预后特点分析. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志. 2025(02): 250-253 . 
百度学术2. 张玲玲，张会品，李桂英，孔燕，马兰. 抗线粒体抗体、红细胞体积分布宽度与原发性胆汁性胆管炎熊去氧胆酸治疗应答效果的关系. 中国医药导报. 2024(04): 100-103 . 百度学术3. 张晓芳，徐海峰，章颖. LSM、PNI、Mayo评分对PBC相关肝硬化的预测价值. 南通大学学报(医学版). 2024(02): 131-135 . 百度学术4. 何学元，马建勋，杨屹立，张敏，潘新民. 布地奈德治疗熊去氧胆酸治疗不应答的原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者疗效及血清氧化应激指标的变化. 实用肝脏病杂志. 2023(03): 376-379 . 百度学术5. 邢雪梅，杨建睿，李治君，陈雅娟，姚凤霞，刘征. 免疫球蛋白用于原发性胆汁性胆管炎、戊型肝炎、肝硬化的鉴别诊断. 基础医学与临床. 2023(08): 1271-1274 . 百度学术6. 李兆明，章颖，邹美银. TBA、IgM、FIB-4评分对原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者肝纤维化的诊断价值. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志. 2023(11): 1254-1257 . 百度学术7. 赵永春，刘锦云，刘晓瑞. 醋酸泼尼松龙联合熊去氧胆酸对PBC患者预后的影响. 河南医学高等专科学校学报. 2023(06): 637-640 . 百度学术其他类型引用(1)
-
下载:
百度学术
下载:
