切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版)

中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (04) : 230 -237. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2023.04.003

论著

181例心脏外科患者发生血流感染危险因素分析
武元星, 任建伟, 朱光发†()   
  1. 100029　北京，首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院呼吸与危重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2023-03-23 出版日期:2023-08-15
  • 通信作者: 朱光发
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No. 81970067)

Risk factors of patients with bloodstream infection in cardiac surgery

Yuanxing Wu, Jianwei Ren, Guangfa Zhu†()   

  1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China
  • Received:2023-03-23 Published:2023-08-15
  • Corresponding author: Guangfa Zhu
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

武元星, 任建伟, 朱光发. 181例心脏外科患者发生血流感染危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 230-237.

Yuanxing Wu, Jianwei Ren, Guangfa Zhu. Risk factors of patients with bloodstream infection in cardiac surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Infectious Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 230-237.

目的

探讨心脏外科患者发生血流感染的危险因素，观察多菌种血流感染与单一阴性菌血流感染的临床特征，为预防心脏外科患者血流感染发生和治疗提供依据。

方法

选取2018年1月至2021年10月首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院心脏外科收治的血流感染者资料，总结病原体检出及分布；选取同时期心脏外科非感染者，与感染组患者根据年龄、性别进行1︰1配比，分析血流感染组（包括革兰阴性菌和阳性菌的混合感染与单一阴性菌感染）与非血流感染组患者临床资料，计量资料比较采用t检验或非参数检验，计数资料比较采用χ2检验，将可能影响血流感染的指标进行多因素Logistic回归，分析血流感染及混合血流感染发生的危险因素。

结果

同时期共收治心脏外科患者55 908例，发生血流感染者181例，感染率为0.3%（181/55 908）。血流感染组与非血流感染组间体外循环（CPB）时间（Z = 5.031、P = 0.001）和手术时间（Z = 3.830、P = 0.001）、是否接受体外膜肺氧合（ECMO）（χ2 = 11.569、P = 0.001）、主动脉内球囊反搏术（IABP）（χ2 = 30.685、P = 0.001）和连续性肾脏替代治疗（CRRT）（χ2 = 24.761、P = 0.001）支持、感染发生前使用碳青霉烯类（χ2 = 11.661、P = 0.001）、喹诺酮类（χ2 = 4.096、P = 0.043）、万古霉素（χ2 = 4.096、P = 0.043）以及联合使用抗菌药物（χ2 = 13.286、P = 0.001）差异均有统计学意义；多因素Logistic回归分析发现，CPB时间（OR = 5.031、95%CI：1.843~6.798、P < 0.001）和手术时间（OR = 1.228、95%CI：1.056~1.427、P = 0.008）、接受ECMO（OR = 4.180、95%CI：1.863~9.377、P = 0.001）、IABP（OR = 4.017、95%CI：1.572~10.267、P = 0.004）和CRRT（OR = 8.586，95%CI：2.494~29.560、P = 0.001）操作、血流感染发生前使用碳青霉烯类（OR = 15.742、95%CI：5.699~43.478、P < 0.001）、喹诺酮类（OR = 2.272、95%CI：1.057~4.886、P = 0.030）、万古霉素（OR = 4.297，95%CI：1.199~15.400、P = 0.025）以及联合使用抗菌药物（OR = 4.520、95%CI：2.154~9.484、P = 0.001）均为术后血流感染发生的危险因素。感染组较非感染组患者总住院时间显著延长，差异有统计学意义（Z = 8.033、P = 0.001）；感染组患者住院期间死亡52例（28.7%），非感染组死亡17例（9.3%），两组病死率差异有统计学意义（χ2 = 21.935、P = 0.001）。血流感染组中37例（20.4%）患者为单一革兰阴性杆菌感染，28例（15.5%）患者为单一革兰阳性球菌感染，116例（64.1%）患者为革兰阴性杆菌和革兰阳性球菌混合感染；共检出革兰阴性杆菌234株，以鲍曼不动杆菌（64株、27.3%）和肺炎克雷伯菌（56株、23.9%）最常见；共检出革兰阳性球菌145株，以表皮葡萄球菌（69株、47.6%）最常见。单因素分析结果显示，混合感染组与单一阴性菌感染组患者CPB时间（t = －4.010、P = 0.001）和手术时间（t =－8.532、P = 0.001）、接触3种（χ2 = 11.723、P = 0.001）及3种以上（χ2 = 4.618、P = 0.032）侵入性血管内装置治疗、感染发生前使用碳青霉烯类（χ2 = 11.661、P = 0.001）、万古霉素（χ2 = 4.096、P = 0.043）、利奈唑胺（χ2 = 15.174、P = 0.001）、多黏菌素（χ2 = 6.353、P = 0.012）以及联合使用抗菌药物（χ2 = 13.286、P = 0.001）差异均有统计学意义。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示，CPB时间（OR = 4.851、95%CI：1.190~1.313、P = 0.015）和手术时间（OR = 14.764、95%CI：1.363~17.264、P = 0.014）、接触3种（OR = 1.257、95%CI：1.046~1.510、P = 0.015）及3种以上（OR = 1.006、95%CI：1.001~1.012、P = 0.032）侵入性血管内装置、混合感染发生前使用碳青霉烯类（OR = 4.765、95%CI：1.770~12.828、P = 0.002）、万古霉素（OR = 7.750、95%CI：1.277~4.203、P = 0.026）、利奈唑胺（OR = 3.925、95%CI：1.665~9.254、P = 0.002）、多黏菌素（OR = 1.987、95%CI：1.985~3.451、P = 0.020）以及联合使用抗菌药物（OR = 1.466、95%CI：1.012~1.976、P = 0.012）均为发生混合血流感染的危险因素，且发生混合血流感染后住院时间显著延长，差异有统计学意义（Z =－1.576、P = 0.001）。

结论

心脏外科发生血流感染以及混合血流感染者多与侵入性血管内装置植入和抗菌药物使用有关，并可导致患者住院时间延长及病死率增加，严重影响患者预后。需关注手术操作及抗菌药物的合理使用，以期降低心脏外科血流感染的发生。

关键词: 血流感染, 血管内装置植入, 病原学, 危险因素, 预后
Objective

To investigate the risk factors of the occurrence of bloodstream infection, and to analyze the difference of clinical characteristics between multi-bacterial bloodstream infection and single negative bacteria, to provide evidence for the prevention and treatment of bloodstream infection in cardiac surgery.

Methods

Medical records of patients with bloodstream infection in Department of Cardiac surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2018 to October 2021 were selected to summarize the detection and distribution of pathogens. Non-infection patients were selected with 1︰1 according to the age and gender of patients in infection group during the same period. The clinical data of the bloodstream infection group (including the multi-bacterial infection and single infection of Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria) and the non-infection group were analyzed, respectively. The measurement data were analyzed by t test or non-parametric test, and the counting data was analyzed by χ2 test. The indicators that may affect bloodstream infection were analyzed by multivariate Logistic regression, the risk factors of bloodstream infection and mixed bloodstream infection were analyzed.

Results

During the same period, a total of 55 908 cardiac surgery patients were admitted, and 181 cases with bloodstream infection, with an infection rate of 0.3% (181/55 908). The results showed that CPB time (Z = 5.031, P = 0.001) and operation time (Z = 3.830, P = 0.001), usage of ECMO (χ2 = 11.569, P = 0.001), IABP (χ2 = 30.685, P = 0.001) and CRRT (χ2 = 24.761, P = 0.001), exposure to carbapenems (χ2 = 11.661, P = 0.001), quinolones (χ2 = 4.096, P = 0.043), vancomycin (χ2 = 4.096, P = 0.043) and combined antibiotics (χ2 = 13.286, P = 0.001) before infection were statistically different between infection group and non-infection group. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that CPB time (OR = 5.031, 95%CI: 1.843-6.798, P < 0.001) and operation time (OR = 1.228, 95%CI: 1.056-1.427, P = 0.008), usage of ECMO (OR = 4.180, 95%CI: 1.863-9.377, P = 0.001), IABP (OR = 4.017, 95%CI: 1.572-10.267, P = 0.004), CRRT (OR = 8.586, 95%CI: 2.494-29.560, P = 0.001), exposure to carbapenems (OR = 15.742, 95%CI: 5.699-43.478, P < 0.001), quinolones (OR = 2.272, 95%CI: 1.057-4.886, P = 0.030) and vancomycin (OR = 4.297, 95%CI: 1.199-15.400, P = 0.025) and combined use of antibiotics (OR = 4.520, 95%CI: 2.154-9.484, P = 0.001) before infection were all risk factors of postoperative bloodstream infection, with statistically significant differences. The total hospital duration of patients in infection group was significantly longer than that of non-infection group, with significant difference (Z = 8.033, P = 0.001). There were 52 deaths (28.7%) in infection group and 17 deaths (9.3%) in non-infecteion group, the mortality rate of the two groups was significantly different (χ2 = 21.935, P = 0.001). Among bloodstream infection group, 37 patients (20.4%) were infected with single Gram-negative bacilli, 28 patients (15.5%) were infected with single Gram-positive cocci, 116 patients (64.1%) were infected with Gram-negative bacilli and Gram-positive cocci. Total of 234 Gram-negative bacillus strains were detected, Acinetobacter baumannii (64 strains, 27.3%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (56 strains, 23.9%) were the most common pathogens. Total of 145 strains of Gram-positive cocci were detected, among which Staphylococcus epidermidis (69 strains, 47.6%) was the most common. The results showed that CPB time (t =-4.010, P = 0.001) and operation time (t =-8.532, P = 0.001), exposure to 3 kinds of invasive endovascular devices (χ2 = 11.723, P = 0.001) and more than 3 kinds of invasive endovascular devices (χ2 = 4.618, P = 0.032), exposure to carbapenems (χ2 = 11.661, P = 0.001), vancomycin (χ2 = 4.096, P = 0.043), linezolid (χ2 = 15.174, P = 0.001), polycolistin (χ2 = 6.353, P = 0.012) and combined antibiotics (χ2 = 13.286, P = 0.001) before infection were significantly different between multi-bacterial bloodstream infection and single negative bacteria group. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that CPB time (OR = 4.851, 95%CI: 1.190-1.313, P = 0.015) and operation time (OR = 14.764, 95%CI: 1.363-17.264, P = 0.014), exposure to 3 (OR = 1.257, 95%CI: 1.046-1.510, P = 0.015) or more than 3 (OR = 1.006, 95%CI: 1.001-1.012, P = 0.032) invasive endovascular devices, usage of carbapenems (OR = 4.765, 95%CI: 1.770-12.828, P = 0.002), vancomycin (OR = 7.750, 95%CI: 1.277-4.203, P = 0.026), linezolid (OR = 3.925, 95%CI: 1.665-9.254, P = 0.002), polycolistin (OR = 1.987, 95%CI: 1.985-3.451, P = 0.020) and combined use of antibiotics (OR = 1.466, 95%CI: 1.012-1.976, P = 0.012) before infection were the risk factors of postoperative multi-bacterial bloodstream infection, and the differences were statistically significant. The length of hospital duration was significantly prolonged after multi-bacterial bloodstream infection, with significant difference (Z =-1.576, P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Bloodstream infection and mixed bloodstream infection of patients with cardiac surgery are mostly associated with invasive intravascular device implantation and antibiotic exposure, and can lead to prolonged hospitalization and increased mortality, which seriously affect the prognosis of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the surgical operation and the rational use of antibiotics to reduce the occurrence of blood flow infection in cardiac surgery.

Key words: Bloodstream infection, Implantation of intravascular devices, Etiology, Risk factors, Prognosis
表1 血流感染者病原学检出和分布
细菌种类 株数（%）
革兰阴性杆菌  
鲍曼不动杆菌 64（27.3）
肺炎克雷伯菌 56（23.9）
铜绿假单胞菌 52（22.2）
阴沟肠杆菌 36（15.4）
黏质沙雷菌 14（6.0）
大肠埃希菌 12（5.1）
革兰阳性球菌  
表皮葡萄球菌 69（47.6）
头状葡萄球菌 18（12.4）
溶血葡萄球菌 14（9.7）
人葡萄球菌 14（9.7）
金黄色葡萄球菌 13（9.0）
粪肠球菌 12（8.3）
屎肠球菌 3（2.6）
腐生葡萄球菌 1（0.8）
沃氏葡萄球菌 1（0.8）
表2 血流感染组与非感染组患者临床特征
指标 感染组（181例） 非感染组（181例） 统计量 P值
接受CPB [例（%）] 116（75.8） 117（67.5） χ2 = 1.811 0.178a
CPB [M（P25，P75），min] 207.0（150.3，270.3） 175.0（146.0，244.0） Z = 5.031 0.001
手术时间[M（P25，P75），h] 8.0（5.0，10.5） 5.0（3.2，8.3） Z = 3.830 0.001
接受ECMO [例（%）] 16（10.4） 2（13.5） χ2 = 11.569 0.001a
接受IABP [例（%）] 39（25.5） 5（16.2） χ2 = 30.685 0.001a
接受CRRT [例（%）] 30（19.6） 3（13.5） χ2 = 24.761 0.001a
抗菌药物应用[例（%）]        
碳青霉烯类 48（31.4） 12（54.0） χ2 = 26.868 0.001a
头孢菌素类 109（71.2） 102（70.3） χ2 = 0.738 0.387a
β-内酰胺类 77（50.3） 53（43.2） χ2 = 2.210 0.322a
喹诺酮类 11（7.2） 4（13.5） χ2 = 7.703 0.006a
万古霉素 92（60.1） 13（45.9） χ2 = 90.488 0.001a
多黏菌素 2（1.3） 0（0.0） χ2 = 2.013 0.156b
联合使用 89（58.1） 34（32.4） χ2 = 41.124 0.001a
表3 血流感染发生相关危险因素的多因素Logistic回归分析
危险因素 β值 S.E.值 Wald χ2值 OR值 95%CI P值
CPB时间 7.519 0.648 5.946 4.851 1.190~181.113 < 0.05
手术时间 2.916 1.285 4.392 14.764 1.363~17.264 < 0.05
接受ECMO 1.278 4.068 4.116 3.539 1.843~6.798 < 0.001
接受IABP 2.692 2.186 3.912 1.228 1.056~1.427 0.008
接受CRRT 1.432 0.154 4.321 8.586 2.494~29.560 0.001
碳青霉烯类使用 1.581 0.142 2.167 15.742 5.699~43.478 < 0.001
喹诺酮类使用 0.443 0.648 5.946 2.272 1.057~4.886 0.030
万古霉素使用 1.339 8.217 0.079 4.297 1.199~15.400 0.025
抗菌药物联合使用 7.542 5.128 1.345 4.520 2.154~9.484 0.001
表4 混合感染组和单一感染组患者临床特征
影响因素 混合感染组（116例） 单一感染组（37例） 统计量 P值
CPB（ ± s，min） 187.62 ± 62.14 208.51 ± 64.46 t =－4.010 0.001
手术时间（ ± s，h） 6.17 ± 2.00 7.56 ± 2.14 t =－8.532 0.001
IABP [例（%）] 33（28.4） 6（16.2） χ2 = 2.210 0.137a
ECMO [例（%）] 11（9.5） 5（13.5） χ2 = 0.487 0.485b
CRRT [例（%）] 25（21.6） 5（13.5） χ2 = 1.150 0.284a
同时或先后接触侵入性血管内装置治疗[例（%）]        
2种 28（24.1） 6（16.2） χ2 = 1.019 0.313a
3种 44（37.9） 3（8.1） χ2 = 11.723 0.001a
3种以上 19（16.4） 1（2.7） χ2 = 4.618 0.032b
抗菌药物应用[例（%）]        
碳青霉烯类 28（24.1） 20（54.1） χ2 = 11.661 0.001a
头孢菌素类 83（71.6） 26（70.3） χ2 = 0.022 0.881a
β-内酰胺类 61（52.6） 16（43.2） χ2 = 0.980 0.322a
喹诺酮类 6（5.2） 5（13.5） χ2 = 2.925 0.087b
万古霉素 75（64.7） 17（45.9） χ2 = 4.096 0.043a
利奈唑胺 50（43.1） 3（8.1） χ2 = 15.174 0.001a
替加环素 6（5.2） 3（8.1） χ2 = 0.437 0.509b
多黏菌素 2（1.7） 0（0.0） — 0.012c
替考拉宁 7（6.0） 6（16.2） χ2 = 3.740 0.053b
联合使用 77（66.4） 12（32.4） χ2 = 13.286 0.001a
表5 发生混合菌血流感染危险因素的多因素Logistic回归分析
危险因素 β值 S.E.值 Wald χ2值 OR值 95%CI P值
CPB时间 1.346 0.285 2.438 4.851 1.190~1.313 0.015
手术时间 2.907 5.218 2.230 14.764 1.363~17.264 0.014
同时或先后接触侵入性血管内装置治疗            
3种 0.731 1.285 3.790 1.257 1.046~1.510 0.015
3种以上 1.597 0.324 5.640 1.006 1.001~1.012 0.032
碳青霉烯类 1.106 0.753 4.392 4.765 1.770~12.828 0.002
万古霉素 3.498 0.504 3.214 7.750 1.277~4.203 0.026
利奈唑胺 3.289 0.612 3.798 3.925 1.665~9.254 0.002
多黏菌素 2.352 1.287 7.890 1.987 1.985~3.451 0.020
抗菌药物联合 4.507 1.246 1.906 1.466 1.012~1.976 0.012
[1]
Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: A systematic review of 200 published prospective studies[J]. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2006,81(9):1159-1171.
[2]
Velasquez Reyes DC, Bloomer M, Morphet J. Prevention of central venous line associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units: A systematic review[J]. Intensive Crit Care Nurs,2017,12(43):12-22.
[3]
Bassetti M, Molinari MP, Mussap M, et al. Candidaemia in internal medicine departments: the burden of a rising problem[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect,2013,19(6):E281-E284.
[4]
Labib JR, Ibrahim SK, Salem MR, et al. Infection with Gram-negative bacteria among children in a tertiary pediatric hospital in Egypt[J]. Am J Infect Control,2018,46(7):798-801.
[5]
胡付品，郭燕，朱德妹, 等. 2020年CHINET中国细菌耐药监测[J]. 中国感染与化疗杂志,2021,21(4):377-387.
[6]
Medina E, Pieper DH. Tackling threats and future problems of multidrug-resistant bacteria[Z]. Cham: Springer International Publishing,2016,398:3-33.
[7]
Cantón-Bulnes ML, Garnacho-Montero J. Practical approach to the management of catheter-related bloodstream infection[J]. Rev Esp Quimioter,2019,32(Suppl 2):38-41.
[8]
Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America[J]. Clin Infect Dis,2009,49(1):1-45.
[9]
Rahmani K, Garikipati A, Barnes G, et al. Early prediction of central line associated bloodstream infection using machine learning[J]. Am J Infect Control,2022,50(4):440-445.
[10]
Timsit J, Ruppé E, Barbier F, et al. Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement[J]. Intensive Care Med,2020,46(2):266-284.
[11]
Weinstein RA, Gaynes R, Edwards JR, et al. Overview of nosocomial infections caused by Gram-negative bacilli[J]. Clin Infect Dis,2005,41(6):848-854.
[12]
Rupp ME, Majorant D. Prevention of vascular catheter-related bloodstream infections[J]. Infect Dis Clin N Am,2016,30(4):853-868.
[13]
Cervera C, Almela M, Martínez-Martínez JA, et al. Risk factors and management of Gram-positive bacteraemia[J]. Infect Dis Clin North Am,2009,34(Suppl 4):S26-S30.
[14]
Petrovic Fabijan A, Lin RC, Ho J, et al. Safety of bacteriophage therapy in severe Staphylococcus aureus infection[J]. Nat Microbiol,2020,5(3):465-472.
[15]
Ruiz-Ruigómez M, Aguado JM. Duration of antibiotic therapy in central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection due to Gram-negative bacilli[J]. Curr Opin Infect Dis,2021,34(6):681-685.
[16]
Surapat B, Montakantikul P, Malathum K, et al. Microbial epidemiology and risk factors for relapse in Gram-negative bacteria catheter-related bloodstream infection with a pilot prospective study in patients with catheter removal receiving short-duration of antibiotic therapy[J]. BMC Infect Dis,2020,20(1):604.
[17]
Ruiz-Ruigómez M, Fernández-Ruiz M, San-Juan R, et al. Impact of duration of antibiotic therapy in central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection due to Gram-negative bacilli[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother,2020,75(10):3049-3055.
[18]
Marschall J, Fraser VJ, Doherty J, et al. Between community and hospital: healthcare-associated Gram-negative bacteremia among hospitalized patients[J]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2009,30(11):1050-1056.
[19]
沈自燕，林少清，杜兴冉, 等. 医院获得性肺炎克雷伯菌血流感染临床特征及预后影响因素[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版),2020,14(3):198-205.
[20]
Beeler C, Dbeibo L, Kelley K, et al. Assessing patient risk of central line-associated bacteremia via machine learning[J]. Am J Infect Control,2018,46(9):986-991.
[21]
朱静轩，喻玮，嵇金如, 等. 基于全国血流感染耐药监测联盟的耐碳青霉烯类革兰阴性菌对替加环素的蒙特卡洛模拟研究[J]. 中华临床感染病杂志,2021,14(1):60-65.
[22]
Awadh H, Chaftari A, Khalil M, et al. Management of enterococcal central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer[J]. BMC Infect Dis,2021,21(1):643.
[23]
Chaves F, Garnacho-Montero J, Del Pozo JL, Diagnosis and treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infection: Clinical guidelines of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology and (SEIMC) and the Spanish Society of Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC)[J]. Med Intensiva(Engl Ed),2018,42(1):5-36.
[24]
中国碳青霉烯耐药肠杆菌科细菌感染诊治与防控专家共识编写组，中国医药教育协会感染疾病专业委员会，中华医学会细菌感染与耐药防控专业委员会. 中国碳青霉烯耐药肠杆菌科细菌感染诊治与防控专家共识[J]. 中华医学杂志,2021,101(36):2850-2860.
[25]
Pierce GN, Resch C, Mourin M, et al. Bacteria and the growing threat of multidrug resistance for invasive cardiac interventions[J]. Rev Cardiovasc Med,2022,23(1):15.
[26]
Nutman A, Tellapragada C, Giske CG, et al. New evidence for managing Gram-negative bloodstream infections[J]. Curr Opin Infect Dis,2021,34(6):599-610.
[1] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[2] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[3] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[4] 屈翔宇, 张懿刚, 李浩令, 邱天, 谈燚. USP24及其共表达肿瘤代谢基因在肝细胞癌中的诊断和预后预测作用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 659-662.
[5] 顾雯, 凌守鑫, 唐海利, 甘雪梅. 两种不同手术入路在甲状腺乳头状癌患者开放性根治性术中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 687-690.
[6] 贺斌, 马晋峰. 胃癌脾门淋巴结转移危险因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[7] 林凯, 潘勇, 赵高平, 杨春. 造口还纳术后切口疝的危险因素分析与预防策略[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-638.
[8] 杨闯, 马雪. 腹壁疝术后感染的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 693-696.
[9] 陈樽, 王平, 金华, 周美玲, 李青青, 黄永刚. 肌肉减少症预测结直肠癌术后切口疝发生的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 639-644.
[10] 关小玲, 周文营, 陈洪平. PTAAR在乙肝相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者短期预后中的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 841-845.
[11] 张润锦, 阳盼, 林燕斯, 刘尊龙, 刘建平, 金小岩. EB病毒相关胆管癌伴多发转移一例及国内文献复习[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 865-869.
[12] 陈晓鹏, 王佳妮, 练庆海, 杨九妹. 肝细胞癌VOPP1表达及其与预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 876-882.
[13] 韩加刚, 王振军. 梗阻性左半结肠癌的治疗策略[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 450-458.
[14] 王景明, 王磊, 许小多, 邢文强, 张兆岩, 黄伟敏. 腰椎椎旁肌的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 846-852.
[15] 颜世锐, 熊辉. 感染性心内膜炎合并急性肾损伤患者的危险因素探索及死亡风险预测[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号