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 (06) : 408 -415. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2023.06.009

论著

老年糖尿病患者社区获得性肺炎病原分布及空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白的预测价值
毛建1,†()   
  1. 1. 610017　成都市，成都市第二人民医院呼吸与危重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2023-05-22 出版日期:2023-12-15
  • 通信作者: 毛建
  • 基金资助:
    2018年四川省医学科研青年创新课题(No. Q18052)

Pathogen distribution of community acquired pneumonia in elderly patients with diabetes and the predictive value of fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin

Jian Mao1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Chengdu Second People’s Hospital, Chengdu 610017, China
  • Received:2023-05-22 Published:2023-12-15
  • Corresponding author: Jian Mao
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

毛建. 老年糖尿病患者社区获得性肺炎病原分布及空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白的预测价值[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 408-415.

Jian Mao. Pathogen distribution of community acquired pneumonia in elderly patients with diabetes and the predictive value of fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin[J]. Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Infectious Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 408-415.

目的

分析老年糖尿病患者社区获得性肺炎（CAP）病原分布特点，并探讨空腹血糖（FBG）联合糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）对其预测价值。

方法

系统抽样法选取2020年1月至2021年11月南充市第五人民医院收治的192例老年糖尿病出院患者开展队列研究，均接受随访。统计出院后3个月内患者CAP的发生率，分析病原分布特点。根据是否发生CAP将入组患者分为感染组（43例）和未感染组（149例），比较两组患者FBG和HbA1c水平；采用多因素Logistic回归分析探讨CAP危险因素，绘制受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析FBG变化率和HbA1c变化率对并发CAP的预测价值，并以曲线下面积（AUC）评价预测效能。

结果

老年糖尿病患者CAP发生率为22.40%（43/192）；并发CAP患者中细菌感染占比最高（79.07%、34/43），其次为肺炎支原体感染（4.76%、2/43）、病毒感染（4.65%、2/43）、真菌感染（4.65%、2/43）、细菌与真菌混合感染（4.65%、2/43），肺炎衣原体感染占比最低（2.33%、1/43）。痰标本培养后共分离55株病原菌，其中革兰阴性菌、革兰阳性菌、真菌占比分别为63.64%（35/43）、27.27%（15/43）和9.09%（5/43）。感染组患者出院后1个月、2个月、3个月FBG和HbA1c水平均显著高于出院时（FBG：t = 17.943、14.535、16.546，P均< 0.001；HbA1c：t = 16.976、16.735、16.734，P均< 0.001），且感染组患者出院后以上3个时间点FBG和HbA1c水平均显著高于未感染组（FBG：t = 15.435、46.522、17.865，P均< 0.001；HbA1c：t = 16.765、17.057、16.846，P均< 0.001）。感染组患者FBG变化率[（48.93 ± 7.61）%]和HbA1c变化率[（65.84 ± 7.97）%]均显著高于未感染组[FBG变化率：（20.04 ± 4.35）%，HbA1c变化率：（34.05 ± 5.11）%]，差异均有统计学意义（t = 11.026、15.884，P均< 0.001）。多因素Logistic回归分析显示，脑卒中后吞咽障碍（OR = 4.246、95%CI：1.486～4.264、P < 0.001）、并发胃食管反流（OR = 3.888、95%CI：1.175～3.946、P = 0.003）、出院3个月FBG变化率（≥ 47.58%）（OR = 4.246、95%CI：2.937～5.555、P = 0.015）和出院3个月HbA1c变化率（≥ 28.65%）（OR = 3.888、95%CI：2.689～5.088、P = 0.012）均为发生CAP的危险因素。ROC曲线分析显示，FBG变化率和HbA1c变化率预测老年糖尿病患者并发CAP的Cut-off值分别为47.58%和28.65%，灵敏度、特异度和AUC分别为51.16%、89.26%和0.779，60.47%、87.92%和0.741；二者联合预测老年糖尿病患者并发CAP的灵敏度、特异度和AUC分别为81.39%、88.59%和0.909，二者联合预测CAP的AUC显著高于FBG变化率或HbA1c变化率单指标预测，差异有统计学意义（Z = 2.201、P = 0.028，Z = 2.579、P = 0.010）。

结论

老年糖尿病患者CAP发生率高，常见革兰阴性菌感染，感染者FBG变化率和HbA1c变化率均较高，且二者联合对CAP发生预测价值较高。

关键词: 老年, 糖尿病, 社区获得性肺炎, 病原菌, 空腹血糖, 糖化血红蛋白
Objective

To investigate the characteristics of pathogen distribution of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in elderly patients with diabetes, and to analyze the predictive value of fasting blood glucose (FBG) combined with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

Methods

Total of 192 elderly patients with diabetes who were discharged from the Fifth People's Hospital of Nanchong from January 2020 to November 2021 were selected by systematic sampling method for cohort study, all of whom were followed up. The incidence of CAP of patients within 3 months after discharge and the distribution characteristics of pathogens were analyzed. All patients were divided into infected group (43 cases) and uninfected group (149 cases) based on whether complicated with CAP, and the levels of FBG and HbA1c between the two groups were compared, respectively. The risk factors of CAP were conducted by multivariate Logistic regression analysis. The predictive values of FBG change rate and HbA1c change rate for concurrent CAP were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the predictive performances were evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC).

Results

The incidence rate of CAP was 22.40% (43/192). Among patients with CAP, bacterial infection accounted for the highest proportion (79.07%, 34/43), followed by Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection (4.76%, 2/43), viral infection (4.65%, 2/43), fungal infection (4.65%, 2/43) and bacterial and fungal mixed infection (4.65%, 2/43); Chlamydia pneumoniae infection accounted for the lowest proportion (2.33%, 1/43). After sputum culture, a total of 55 pathogenic bacteria were isolated, among which Gram-negative bacteria, Gram-positive bacteria and fungi accounted for 63.64% (35/43), 27.27% (15/43) and 9.09% (5/43), respectively. The levels of FBG and HbA1c at discharge of patients in infected group were significantly higher than those of 1 month, 2 months and 3 months after discharge (FBG: t = 17.943, 14.535, 16.546; all P < 0.001. HbA1c: t =16.976, 16.735, 16.734; all P < 0.001). And the levels of FBG and HbA1c of Infected patients were significantly higher at above three time points after discharge than those of uninfected patients (FBG: t = 15.435, 46.522, 17.865; all P < 0.001. HbA1c: t = 16.765, 17.057, 16.846; all P < 0.001). The FBG change rate [(48.93 ± 7.61)%] and HbA1c change rate [(65.84 ± 7.97)%] of patients in infected group were significantly higher than those of uninfected group [FBG: (20.04 ± 4.35)%, HbA1c: (34.05 ± 5.11)%], with significant differences (t = 11.026, 15.884; both P < 0.001). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that post stroke dysphagia (OR = 4.246, 95%CI: 1.486-4.264, P < 0.001), concurrent gastroesophageal reflux (OR = 3.888, 95%CI: 1.175-3.946, P = 0.003), FBG change rate at 3 months after discharge (≥ 47.58%) (OR = 4.246, 95%CI: 2.937-5.555, P = 0.015) and HbA1c change rate at 3 months after discharge (≥ 28.65%) (OR = 3.888, 95%CI: 2.689-5.088, P = 0.012) were all influencing factors for CAP. ROC analysis showed that the cut-off values predicted by the change rates of FBG and HbA1c in elderly patients with diabetes complicated with CAP were 47.58% and 28.65%, respectively; and the sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 51.16%, 89.26% and 0.779, 60.47%, 87.92% and 0.741, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and AUC predicted by the combination of the two indicators were 81.39%, 88.59% and 0.909, respectively, the AUC predicted by the combination of the two indicators were significantly higher than predicted by the change rates of FBG or HbA1c alone, with significant differences (Z = 2.201, P = 0.028; Z = 2.579, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

The incidence of CAP was high in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus, and the Gram-negative bacteria infection was common, the change rate of FBG and HbA1c in infected patients were high, and the combination of the two indicators had a high predictive value for CAP.

Key words: Elderly, Diabetes, Community acquired pneumonia, Pathogens, Fasting blood glucose, Hemoglobin A1c
表1 入组老年糖尿病患者所分离病原学分布
病原体 株（%）
革兰阴性菌 35（63.64）
肺炎克雷伯菌 12（34.29）
铜绿假单胞菌 8（22.86）
鲍曼不动杆菌 5（14.29）
大肠埃希菌 5（14.29）
流感嗜血杆菌 4（11.43）
变形杆菌 1（2.86）
革兰阳性菌 15（27.27）
黄色葡萄球菌 8（53.34）
表皮葡萄球菌 3（20.00）
肺炎链球菌 2（13.33）
粪肠球菌 2（13.33）
真菌 5（9.09）
白色假丝酵母菌 2（40.00）
光滑假丝酵母菌 2（40.00）
曲霉菌属 1（20.00）
表2 感染组和未感染组老年糖尿病患者一般资料
指标 感染组（43例） 未感染组（149例） 统计量 P值
性别[例（%）]     χ2 = 0.066a 0.797
男 23（53.49） 83（55.70）    
女 20（46.51） 66（44.30）
年龄（ ± s，岁） 73.05 ± 9.88 72.36 ± 9.27 t = 0.742 0.285
病程（ ± s，年） 9.15 ± 1.52 8.98 ± 1.44 t = 1.604 0.198
脑卒中后吞咽障碍[例（%）]     χ2 = 28.372b < 0.001
是 13（30.23） 5（3.36）    
否 30（69.77） 144（96.64）
并发胃食管反流[例（%）]     χ2 = 30.935a < 0.001
是 18（41.86） 11（7.38）    
否 25（58.14） 138（92.62）
出院时FBG（ ± s，mmol/L） 6.15 ± 1.08 6.20 ± 1.11 t = 0.262 0.794
出院时HbA1c（ ± s，%） 5.28 ± 0.76 5.33 ± 0.82 t = 0.358 0.721
出院3个月FBG变化率（ ± s，%） 48.93 ± 7.61 20.04 ± 4.35 t = 11.026 < 0.001
出院3个月HbA1c变化率（ ± s，%） 65.84 ± 7.97 34.05 ± 5.11 t = 15.884 < 0.001
血糖控制未达标[例（%）]     χ2 = 5.580a 0.018
是 19（44.19） 38（25.50）    
否 24（55.81） 111（74.50）
表3 感染组和未感染组老年糖尿病患者出院时与出院后FBG水平（ ± s，mmol/L）
组别 例数 出院时 出院后1个月 出院后2个月 出院后3个月
感染组          
出院后1个月内感染 10 5.91 ± 0.96 7.14 ± 1.12 — —
出院后2个月内感染 13 5.76 ± 1.13 7.65 ± 1.43 8.42 ± 1.65 —
出院后3个月内感染 20 5.89 ± 1.05 7.38 ± 1.22 8.34 ± 1.86 9.53 ± 1.92
未感染组 149 5.81 ± 1.07 5.93 ± 1.08 6.01 ± 1.12 6.06 ± 1.24
统计量   F = 0.070 F = 19.635 F = 47.487 t = 7.865
P值   0.976 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
表4 感染组和未感染组老年糖尿病患者出院时与出院后HbA1c水平（ ± s，%）
组别 例数 出院时 出院后1个月 出院后2个月 出院后3个月
感染组 43        
出院后1个月内感染 10 6.25 ± 0.76 7.54 ± 0.84 — —
出院后2个月内感染 13 6.13 ± 0.84 7.36 ± 0.89 8.01 ± 1.14 —
出院后3个月内感染 20 6.17 ± 0.81 7.31 ± 0.92 7.63 ± 1.06 8.49 ± 1.27
未感染组 149 6.22 ± 0.79 6.31 ± 0.85 6.37 ± 0.74 6.26 ± 0.88
统计量   F = 0.077 F = 17.358 F = 41.588 t = 7.611
P值   0.972 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
表5 老年糖尿病患者并发CAP的多因素Logistic回归分析
影响因素 β值 S.E.值 Wald χ2值 OR值 95%CI P值
脑卒中后吞咽障碍 0.923 0.269 11.773 4.246 1.486～4.264 < 0.001
并发胃食管反流 0.667 0.309 6.161 3.888 1.175～3.946 0.003
出院3个月FBG变化率（≥ 47.58%） 1.446 0.668 4.686 4.246 2.937～5.555 0.015
出院3个月HbA1c变化率（≥ 28.65%） 1.358 0.612 4.924 3.888 2.689～5.088 0.012
图1 FBG变化率和HbA1c变化率以及二者联合预测老年糖尿病患者并发CAP的ROC曲线
表6 FBG变化率和HbA1c变化率以及二者联合对老年糖尿病患者并发CAP的预测效能
指标 Cut-off值（%） 敏感性（%） 特异性（%） AUC 95%CI
FBG变化率 47.58 51.16 89.26 0.779 0.681～0.859
HbA1c变化率 28.65 60.47 87.92 0.741 0.637～0.828
联合检测 — 81.39 88.59 0.909 0.828～0.957
[1]
张波, 杨文英. 中国糖尿病流行病学及预防展望[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志,2019,11(1):7-10.
[2]
张洁, 张妮娅. 300例老年糖尿病患者临床流行病学特点及诊治分析[J]. 解放军预防医学杂志,2018,36(5):609-612.
[3]
阮婷, 徐晓. 老年人社区获得性肺炎的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华老年医学杂志,2015,34(7):720-722.
[4]
Dharmalingam M, Aravind SR, Thacker H, et al. Efficacy and safety of remogliflozin etabonate, a new sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial[J]. Drugs,2020,80(6):587-600.
[5]
Lima-Martínez MM, Carrera Boada C, Madera-Silva MD, et al. COVID-19 and diabetes: abidirectional relationship[J]. Clin Investig Arterioscler,2021,33(3):151-157.
[6]
Liu Y, Wang Y, Ni Y, et al. Gut microbiome fermentation determines the efficacy of exercise for diabetes prevention[J]. Cell Metab, 2020,31(1):77-91.
[7]
Farhan SS, Hussain SA. Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their soluble receptors (sRAGE) as early predictors of reno-vascular complications in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus[J]. Diabetes Metab Syndr,2019,13(4):2457-2461.
[8]
Rosenstock J, Frias J, Páll D, et al. Effect of ertugliflozin on glucose control, body weight, blood pressure and bone density in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy (VERTIS MET)[J]. Diabetes Obes Metab,2018,20(3):520-529.
[9]
中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2017年版)[J]. 中国实用内科杂志,2018,38(4):34-86.
[10]
何新华. 社区获得性肺炎的诊治-2014指南[C]. 中华医学会急诊医学分会全国急诊医学学术年会,2014.
[11]
孙静. 血糖糖化血红蛋白果糖胺指标在糖尿病中的临床应用[J]. 检验医学与临床,2009,6(9):694-694,696.
[12]
袁丽萍, 张丽玲, 江淼, 等. 2型糖尿病合并感染多器官功能障碍综合征与干扰素调节因子5基因多态性的关联性[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志,2021,31(14):2099-2013.
[13]
Lomonaco R, Godinez Leiva E, et al. Advanced liver fibrosis is common in patients with type 2 diabetes followed in the outpatient setting: the need for systematic screening[J]. Diabetes Care, 2021,44(2):399-406.
[14]
Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Pitt B, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease[J]. N Engl J Med,2021, 384(2):129-139.
[15]
Acharya AB, Thakur S, Muddapur MV, et al. Systemic cytokines in type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic periodontitis[J]. Curr Diabetes Rev,2018,14(2):182-188.
[16]
Gonzalez DE, Foresto RD, Ribeiro AB. SGLT-2 inhibitors in diabetes: a focus on renoprotection[J]. Rev Assoc Med Bras,2020,66(Suppl 1): S17-S24.
[17]
Rosenblatt R, Atteberry P, Tafesh Z, et al. Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus increases risk of infection in patients with advanced cirrhosis[J]. Dig Liver Dis,2021,53(4):445-451.
[18]
韩波, 冯旰珠. 362例社区获得性肺炎患者临床特征及影响因素分析[J]. 南京医科大学学报:自然科学版,2014,34(6):772-776.
[19]
刘春妮, 初卫江, 高爱芹, 等. 糖尿病合并不同临床表型肺部感染者的细菌谱分析[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版),2018,12(1):65-70.
[20]
熊小芹, 罗光涛, 石亚军. 老年糖尿病患者合并社区获得性肺炎临床特点分析[J]. 川北医学院学报,2015,30(2):240-242,252.
[21]
路玉李, 肖建东, 刘娜. 402例糖尿病患者弓形虫感染情况及其血糖及血脂指标变化分析[J]. 中国地方病防治杂志,2018,33(3):342, 344.
[22]
Chen Y, Yang D, Cheng B, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with diabetes and COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering medication[J]. Diabetes Care,2020,43(7):1399-1407.
[23]
Tuttle KR, Brosius FC 3rd, Cavender MA, et al. SGLT2 inhibition for CKD and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: report of a scientific workshop sponsored by the national kidney foundation[J]. Am J Kidney Dis,2021,77(1):94-109.
[24]
Hartmann-Boyce J, Rees K, Perring JC, et al. Risks of and from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 in people with diabetes: a systematic review of reviews[J]. Diabetes Care,2021,44(12):2790-2811.
[25]
Khunti K, Knighton P, Zaccardi F, et al. Prescription of glucose-lowering therapies and risk of COVID-19 mortality in people with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide observational study in England[J]. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol,2021,9(5):293-303.
[26]
Nevola R, Acierno C, Pafundi PC, et al. Chronic hepatitis C infection induces cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes: mechanisms and management[J]. Minerva Med,2021,112(2):188-200.
[1] 何金梅, 尹立雪, 谭静, 张文军, 王锐, 任梅, 廖明娇. 超声心肌做功技术对2型糖尿病患者潜在左心室心肌收缩功能损伤的评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2023, 20(10): 1029-1035.
[2] 廖晓霜, 曾李, 杨波. 脱细胞同种异体真皮联合自体皮修复糖尿病足创面的临床效果[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(01): 46-50.
[3] 冯蓉琴, 王鹏, 李煜, 陆翮, 白晓智, 韩军涛. 抗菌肽在糖尿病创面愈合中作用的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(01): 78-82.
[4] 孙艺玮, 陈炜, 秦巍, 杜景辰, 孟昕, 周永军. 血管腔内介入治疗糖尿病足合并下肢动脉硬化闭塞症患者术后再狭窄与血清炎症因子的相关性[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(01): 34-40.
[5] 赵帅, 王伟, 李瑞奇, 周家杰, 王道荣. 3D腹腔镜下袖状胃切除术治疗肥胖合并2型糖尿病的临床疗效及影响因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 146-149.
[6] 刘盾, 潘晟. 不同入路腹腔镜袖状胃切除术用于肥胖症合并2型糖尿病的效果[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 150-154.
[7] 陈静, 王晓玲, 安康. 老年进展期胃癌术后腹膜转移的相关因素及治疗进展[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 225-228.
[8] 李凤仪, 李若凡, 高旭, 张超凡. 目标导向液体干预对老年胃肠道肿瘤患者术后血流动力学、胃肠功能恢复的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 29-32.
[9] 方道成, 王勇, 胡媛媛. 泌尿系结石患者尿液菌谱及药敏特点分析[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 64-68.
[10] 汤天津, 于炎冰, 张黎. 周围神经电刺激的临床应用与研究进展[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(01): 51-55.
[11] 黄莉吉, 王婷, 朱鹏飞, 刘敬顺, 余江毅, 谢绍锋. 芪葵颗粒联合火把花根片对G3A3期糖尿病肾病的疗效及对血清miRNA-21的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(12): 1247-1252.
[12] 陶海燕, 金晓维, 郁海静, 欧阳皓, 张娟, 张海芳. 行内镜黏膜下的剥离术治疗老年大肠侧向发育型肿瘤的临床观察[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(11): 1137-1141.
[13] 陈润祥, 张大涯, 陈世锔, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 李达, 曾凡, 白飞虎. 281例消化性溃疡出血的临床特征[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(11): 1147-1153.
[14] 邬秋俊, 向茜. 甘油三酯-葡萄糖指数与2型糖尿病微血管并发症相关性的研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(10): 1109-1112.
[15] 郭震天, 张宗明, 赵月, 刘立民, 张翀, 刘卓, 齐晖, 田坤. 机器学习算法预测老年急性胆囊炎术后住院时间探索[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(09): 955-961.
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