切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (03) : 310 -318. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2024.03.010

介入超声影像学

淋巴瘤患者超声引导下颈内静脉置管术后静脉血栓形成的危险因素评估
曹琨芃1, 王昕玥1, 吴柳希1, 邓红艳1, 李璐1, 徐超丽1, 叶新华1,()   
  1. 1. 210029 南京,南京医科大学第一附属医院(江苏省人民医院)超声诊断科
  • 收稿日期:2023-06-19 出版日期:2024-03-01
  • 通信作者: 叶新华

Risk factors for internal jugular venous thrombosis in patients with lymphoma after ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization

Kunpeng Cao1, Xinyue Wang1, Liuxi Wu1, Hongyan Deng1, Lu Li1, Chaoli Xu1, Xinhua Ye1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China
  • Received:2023-06-19 Published:2024-03-01
  • Corresponding author: Xinhua Ye
引用本文:

曹琨芃, 王昕玥, 吴柳希, 邓红艳, 李璐, 徐超丽, 叶新华. 淋巴瘤患者超声引导下颈内静脉置管术后静脉血栓形成的危险因素评估[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(03): 310-318.

Kunpeng Cao, Xinyue Wang, Liuxi Wu, Hongyan Deng, Lu Li, Chaoli Xu, Xinhua Ye. Risk factors for internal jugular venous thrombosis in patients with lymphoma after ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2024, 21(03): 310-318.

目的

探讨淋巴瘤患者在超声实时引导下行颈内静脉置管(IJVC)术后颈内静脉血栓形成的危险因素。

方法

回顾性分析2021年2月至2023年3月于南京医科大学第一附属医院超声诊断科接受超声引导下IJVC的108例淋巴瘤患者的临床及超声资料。根据术前超声检查颈内静脉内是否有血栓形成分为无血栓组(62例)和血栓组(46例)。采用单因素分析(独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney非参数检验和χ2检验)比较2组临床资料及超声特征的差异。应用多因素Logistic回归筛选血栓形成的独立危险因素。基于独立危险因素及高危因素构建血栓形成的风险预测模型。采用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线的曲线下面积(AUC)评估风险预测模型和各独立危险因素的预测效能,最后使用列线图将风险模型可视化并通过校准曲线和临床决策曲线分析验证量化模型的应用价值。

结果

单因素分析结果表明,与无血栓组比较,血栓组使用14G导管管径比例(67.4% vs 30.6%)、使用单腔管比例(73.9% vs 46.8%)、纤维蛋白原(FIB)水平[(3.36±1.01)g/L vs(2.80±0.75)g/L]、D-二聚体水平[5.04(3.49,1.89)mg/L vs 0.18(0.10,0.58)mg/L]、侵袭性淋巴瘤比例(91.3% vs 75.8%)、糖尿病患者比例(93.5% vs 77.4%)更高,血管管径[10.6(7.8,14.1)mm vs 8.8(7.5,11.3)mm]更大,活化部分凝血活酶时间(APTT)[28.30(26.08,30.55)s vs 30.05(27.60,31.50)s]更短,差异均具有统计学意义(χ2=15.672,P=0.001;χ2=8.002,P=0.005;t=-3.328,P=0.001;Z=-3.483,P<0.001;χ2=4.375,P=0.036;χ2=5.135,P=0.023;Z=-2.262,P=0.024;Z=-2.206,P=0.027)。多因素回归分析显示血管管径(OR=1.175,95%CI:1.016~1.358,P=0.029)、FIB(OR=2.332,95%CI:1.185~4.590,P=0.014)、糖尿病(OR=4.904,95%CI:1.017~23.652,P=0.048)与淋巴瘤患者接受超声引导下IJVC后血栓形成独立相关。风险预测模型预测淋巴瘤患者血栓形成的AUC为0.831,敏感度为78.3%,特异度为72.6%,约登指数为0.509,较各独立危险因素具有更好的诊断效能。列线图模型在内部验证中预测血栓形成的风险表现出良好的拟合度。

结论

血管管径、FIB、糖尿病是IJVC术后静脉血栓形成的独立危险因素。上述独立危险因素联合APTT、导管管径、D-二聚体、淋巴瘤生物学行为建立的风险预测模型结合淋巴瘤患者的一般情况,可在IJVC术前评估静脉血栓形成的风险,能为临床IJVC后颈内静脉血栓形成的预防及治疗提供指导。

Objective

To identify risk factors for internal jugular venous thrombosis in patients with lymphoma after real-time ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization (IJVC) to provide guidance for its clinical prevention and treatment.

Methods

The clinical and ultrasonic data of 108 patients with lymphoma who received ultrasound-guided IJVC at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from February 2021 to March 2023 were collected. Based on whether there was thrombosis in the internal jugular vein assessed by vascular ultrasound before operation, the patients were divided into two groups: non-thrombotic group (n=62) and thrombus group (n=46). Differences in clinical and ultrasonic characteristics between the two groups were compared by univariate analysis. Independent risk factors were identified by multivariate logistic regression. A risk prediction model was constructed based on the identified independent risk factors and high-risk factors, and the predictive efficacy of the model and each independent risk factor was quantified by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Finally, a nomogram was constructed based on multivariate logistic regression models to visualize the prediction model, and its prediction accuracy was evaluated using a calibration curve. Clinical effectiveness of the nomogram was evaluated by decision curve analysis.

Results

Univariate analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients using 14G catheter (67.4% vs 30.6%) and single lumen tube (73.9% vs 46.8%), the levels of fibrinogen (FIB) [(3.36±1.01) g/L vs (2.80±0.75) g/L] and D-dimer [5.04 (3.49, 1.89) mg/L vs 0.18 (0.10, 0.58) mg/L], and the proportion of patients with aggressive lymphoma (91.3% vs 75.8%) and diabetes (93.5% vs 77.4%) were significantly higher, vascular diameter [10.6 (7.8, 14.1) mm vs 8.8 (7.5, 11.3) mm] was significantly larger, and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) [28.30 (26.08, 30.55) s vs 30.05 (27.60, 31.50) s] was significantly shorter in the thrombus group than in the non-thrombotic group (χ2=15.672, P=0.001; χ2=8.002, P=0.005; t=-3.328, P=0.001; Z=-3.483, P<0.001; χ2=4.375, P=0.036; χ2=5.135, P=0.023; Z=-2.262, P=0.024; Z=-2.206, P=0.027). Multivariate regression analysis showed that vascular diameter (odds ratio [OR]=1.175, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.016-1.358, P=0.029), FIB (OR=2.332, 95%CI: 1.185-4.590, P=0.014), and diabetes (OR=4.904, 95%CI: 1.017-23.652, P=0.048) were independently associated with thrombosis in lymphoma patients after ultrasound-guided IJVC (P<0.05 for all). The risk prediction model had an AUC of 0.831, sensitivity of 78.3%, specificity of 72.6%, and Yoden index of 0.509, providing better diagnostic efficacy than each independent risk factor. The nomogram model showed good fit in internal validation for predicting the risk of thrombosis in patients with lymphoma after ultrasound-guided IJVC.

Conclusion

Vascular diameter, FIB, and diabetes are independent risk factors for venous thrombosis after IJVC. The risk model established based on the above independent risk factors combined with APTT, catheter diameter, DD2, and lymphoma biological behavior, together with the general condition of lymphoma patients, can predict the risk of venous thrombosis before IJVC surgery, and provide guidance for clinical prevention and treatment of thrombosis.

图1 超声测量血管管径及流速示意图。图a、b分别为颈内静脉长轴内径及血流流速测值
图2 颈内静脉血栓超声声像图表现。图a:右侧颈内静脉附壁血栓长轴;图b:右侧颈内静脉附壁血栓短轴
图3 颈内静脉血栓二维超声及彩色多普勒超声表现。图a:右侧颈内静脉絮状低回声充填,图b:彩色多普勒成像显示血流充盈缺损
表1 血栓组与非血栓组淋巴瘤患者临床特征比较
资料 血栓组(46例) 无血栓组(62例) 统计值 P
性别[例(%)] χ2=0.500 0.823
24(52.2) 31(50.0)
22(47.8) 31(50.0)
年龄[岁,MQR)] 53.50(36.50,53.50) 63.00(46.75,69.00) Z=-1.638 0.101
导管管径[例(%)] χ2=15.672 0.001
14G 31(67.4) 19(30.6)
16G 3(6.5) 10(16.1)
7F 12(26.1) 29(46.8)
5F 0(0) 4(6.5)
导管管腔数[例(%)] χ2=8.002 0.005
单腔 34(73.9) 29(46.8)
双腔 12(26.1) 33(53.2)
APTT[s,MQR)] 28.30(26.08,30.55) 30.05(27.60,31.50) Z=-2.206 0.027
FIB(g/L, 3.36±1.01 2.80±0.75 t=-3.328 0.001
D-二聚体[mg/L,MQR)] 5.04(3.49,1.89) 0.18(0.10,0.58) Z=-3.483 <0.001
白细胞计数[/L,MQR)] 0.53(0.25,1.18) 0.17(0.10,0.57) Z=-1.190 0.234
血小板计数[/L,MQR)] 183.00(108.25,251.75) 183.00(144.25,212.50) Z=-0.025 0.980
淋巴瘤分型[例(%)] χ2=0.988 0.320
HL 5(10.9) 11(17.7)
NHL 41(89.1) 51(82.3)
淋巴瘤生物学行为[例(%)] χ2=4.375 0.036
惰性 4(8.7) 15(24.2)
侵袭性 42(91.3) 47(75.8)
临床分期[例(%)] χ2=0.597 0.440
Ⅰ~Ⅱ期 15(32.6) 16(25.8)
Ⅲ~Ⅳ期 31(67.4) 46(74.2)
临床分组[例(%)] χ2=1.081 0.298
A组 34(73.9) 40(64.5)
B组 12(26.1) 22(35.5)
糖尿病[例(%)] χ2=5.135 0.023
43(93.5) 48(77.4)
3(6.5) 14(22.6)
高血压[例(%)] χ2=0.597 0.440
11(23.9) 19(30.6)
35(76.1) 43(69.4)
冠心病[例(%)] χ2=1.400 0.237
5(10.9) 3(4.8)
41(89.1) 59(95.2)
表2 血栓组与非血栓组的淋巴瘤患者超声特征比较[MQR)]
表3 接受超声引导下中心静脉置管术的淋巴瘤患者血栓形成因素的多因素回归分析
图4 风险预测模型及各独立危险因素预测淋巴瘤患者血栓形成的受试者操作特征曲线
表4 风险模型与各独立危险因素预测淋巴瘤患者血栓形成的预测效能
图5 预测超声引导下颈内静脉置管(IJVC)术后淋巴瘤患者血栓形成风险的列线图模型。每例患者根据其自身情况计算每个变量对应的得分,其总分为对应患者出现血栓的概率(图a)。图b:例1,血管管径6.0 mm,使用16G导管,活化部分凝血活酶时间31.3 s,纤维蛋白原3.3 g/L,D-二聚体0.28 mg/L,侵袭性淋巴瘤,有糖尿病病史,根据列线图计算每一项得分后(红色箭头所指),总分约122.75分,形成血栓风险约25%(蓝色箭头所指),后续随访过程中患者IJVC后未形成颈内静脉血栓。图c:例2,血管管径20.0 mm,使用14G导管,活化部分凝血活酶时间25.0 s,纤维蛋白原2.79 g/L,D-二聚体0.4 mg/L,侵袭性淋巴瘤,有糖尿病病史,根据列线图计算每一项得分后(红色箭头所指),总分约165.75分,形成血栓风险约86%(蓝色箭头所指),后续随访过程中患者IJVC术后形成颈内静脉血栓
图6 预测淋巴瘤患者发生血栓列线图模型的临床验证。图a:校准图表明列线图预测血栓发生的概率与实际结果的一致性较好。图b:决策曲线分析表明列线图在血栓发生预测中产生了净收益
1
吴永勇, 谢俊英, 杨林, 等. 3500例肿瘤患者中心静脉置管相关并发症及危险因素分析 [J]. 癌症进展, 2018, 16(10): 1245-1249.
2
Citla Sridhar D, Abou-Ismail MY, Ahuja SP. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children and adults [J]. Thromb Res, 2020, 187: 103-112.
3
Fahy B, Sockrider M. Central venous catheter [J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2019, 199(11): P21-P22.
4
van Baarle FLF, van de Weerdt EK, van der Velden WJFM, et al. Platelet transfusion before cvc placement in patients with thrombocytopenia [J]. N Engl J Med, 2023, 388(21): 1956-1965.
5
Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study [J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2010, 25(12): 1748-1753.
6
Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2012, 38(7): 1105-1117.
7
Bouaziz H, Zetlaoui PJ, Pierre S, et al. Guidelines on the use of ultrasound guidance for vascular access [J]. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2015, 34(1): 65-69.
8
Lin S, Zhu N, Zhang Y, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model of catheter-related thrombosis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy based on ultrasonography results and clinical information [J]. J Thromb Thrombolysis, 2022, 54(3): 480-491.
9
Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul J. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice [J]. Critical Care (London, England), 2017, 21(1): 225.
10
Citla Sridhar D, Abou-Ismail MY, Ahuja SP. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children and adults [J]. Thromb Res, 2020, 187: 103-112.
11
杨婧诗, 邹立群. 淋巴瘤相关静脉血栓的影响因素及风险评估模型的研究进展 [J]. 中国全科医学, 2021, 24(23): 2992-2997.
12
Van Nest DS, Clarkson S, Chisari E, et al. Low-dose aspirin administered for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis reduces the incidence of heterotopic ossification in total joint arthroplasty [J]. J Arthroplasty, 2021, 36(5): 1543-1547.
13
Drakos P, Ford BC, Labropoulos N. A systematic review on internal jugular vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [J]. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2020, 8(4): 662-666.
14
Li X, Wang G, Yan K, et al. The incidence, risk factors, and patterns of peripherally inserted central catheter-related venous thrombosis in cancer patients followed up by ultrasound [J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 4329-4340.
15
Gerotziafas GT, Papageorgiou L, Salta S, et al. Updated clinical models for VTE prediction in hospitalized medical patients [J]. Thromb Res, 2018, 164 Suppl 1: S62-S69.
16
中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 淋巴瘤诊疗指南(2022年版) [J]. 中国肿瘤临床与康复, 2023, 30(3): 135-158.
17
Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice, 8th edition [J]. J Infus Nurs, 2021, 44(1S Suppl 1): S1-S224.
18
顾婕, 钱火红, 任凭, 等. 2021年美国输液护理学会《输液治疗实践标准》中血管通路装置的置入与维护解读 [J]. 护理研究, 2023, 37(3): 377-381.
19
袁晓丰. 恶性肿瘤化疗不同深静脉置管方式与静脉血栓形成的原因分析 [J]. 护理实践与研究, 2015, 12(1): 68.
20
Haggstrom L, Parmar G, Brungs D. Central venous catheter thrombosis in cancer: a multi-centre retrospective study investigating risk factors and contemporary trends in management [J]. Clin Med Insights Oncol, 2020, 14: 2012318455.
21
曲瑞泽, 张志鹏, 付卫. 肿瘤患者中心静脉导管相关血栓的成因和诊治研究进展 [J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2022, 22(3): 246-250.
22
刘霞, 张锟. 超声引导下中心静脉置管在危重症患者的临床应用 [J]. 临床医药文献电子杂志, 2020, 7(15): 25-26.
23
李聪, 徐忠良. 颈静脉的超声检测技术在临床中的应用价值 [J]. 中风与神经疾病杂志, 2021, 38(11): 1054-1056.
24
María LT, Alejandro GS, María Jesús P. Central venous catheter insertion: review of recent evidence [J]. Best Prac Res Clin Anaesthesiol, 2021, 35(1): 135-140.
25
Baskin JL, Pui C, Reiss U, et al. Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters [J]. Lancet (London, England), 2009, 374(9684): 159-169.
26
岑晨, 张苏展. 肿瘤相关静脉血栓栓塞症风险评估及一级预防的研究进展 [J]. 实用肿瘤杂志, 2021, 36(4): 379-386.
27
傅爱林, 沈刚, 汪小葛, 等. 恶性淋巴瘤合并静脉血栓栓塞的临床特征及血液学指标检测 [J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2015, 42(4): 226-230.
28
Qdaisat A, Soud RA, Wu CC, et al. Poor performance of D-dimer in excluding venous thromboembolism among patients with lymphoma and leukemia [J]. Haematologica, 2019, 104(6): e265-e268.
29
Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis [J]. Blood, 2008, 111(10): 4902-4907.
30
Antic D, Milic N, Nikolovski S, et al. Development and validation of multivariable predictive model for thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients [J]. Am J Hematol, 2016, 91(10): 1014-1019.
31
Yokoyama K. Thrombosis in lymphoma patients and in myeloma patients [J]. Keio J Med, 2015, 64(3): 37-43.
32
Kekre N, Connors JM. Venous thromboembolism incidence in hematologic malignancies [J]. Blood Rev, 2019, 33: 24-32.
33
Sgarabotto D, Prandoni P, Stefani PM, et al. Prevalence and patterns of symptomatic thromboembolism in oncohematology [J]. Haematologica, 1998, 83(5): 442-446.
34
盘德辉, 李翠君, 姚剑坤, 等. 血糖控制水平对2型糖尿病合并冠心病病人血液高凝状态及血栓栓塞事件的影响 [J]. 中西医结合心脑血管病杂志, 2020, 18(13): 2097-2100.
35
付春玲, 刘红英, 郭英, 等. 基于静脉血栓栓塞症风险评分的综合措施干预高龄2型糖尿病住院患者静脉血栓的发生 [J]. 上海预防医学, 2023, 35(4): 320-325.
[1] 诸佳玮, 陈强, 王辉阳, 蒋天安. 双极射频活检针在肝粗针活检止血的研发与初步应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(01): 69-74.
[2] 肖志满, 龚煜, 谢景凌, 刘斌伟. 上下肢关节镜手术后患者下肢深静脉血栓发生的对比研究[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 601-606.
[3] 邵长杰, 杜晓颖, 徐奎帅, 张靓, 纪岩磊. 住院天数影响全膝关节置换术后下肢深静脉血栓形成[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 588-591.
[4] 吴香敏, 吴鹏. 超声引导下收肌管阻滞联合腘动脉与膝关节后囊间隙阻滞在老年患者全膝关节置换术中的应用效果[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 516-522.
[5] 黄应雄, 叶子, 蒋鹏, 詹红, 姚陈, 崔冀. 急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成致透壁性肠坏死的临床危险因素分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 413-421.
[6] 罗星玉, 杨喆, 郑树森. 门静脉血栓分型与肝移植门静脉重建策略探讨[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 372-380.
[7] 孔博, 张璟, 吕珂. 超声技术在复杂腹壁疝诊治中的作用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[8] 薛原, 吉晓丽, 温传允, 吴晓晨. 超声下TPVB在NSCLC根治术麻醉中的应用及术后镇痛效果分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 685-687.
[9] 莫鹏, 郭杏春, 梁秀娟, 王耀明. 超声引导与CT引导射频消融治疗肝细胞癌患者疗效及预后比较[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(02): 151-154.
[10] 萨仁高娃, 张英霞, 邓伟, 闫诺, 樊宁. 超声引导下鼠肝消融术后组织病理特征的变化规律及影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 394-398.
[11] 吴钰娴, 冯亚园, 霍雷, 贾宁阳, 张娟. 原发性肝脏淋巴瘤的影像学诊断价值研究[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 349-353.
[12] 苏元波, 李其辉, 李璐, 路明, 董菲. 免疫化疗对HBsAg阴性/抗-HBc阳性T细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者乙型肝炎病毒再激活的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 1-6.
[13] 王勇, 王丽. 导管接触性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓安全性和有效性的系统评价再评价[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 58-63.
[14] 葛静萍, 尹媛媛, 李燕. 梯度压力袜联合间歇充气加压在老年新型冠状病毒肺炎患者预防下肢深静脉血栓形成中的应用[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 70-74.
[15] 刘桂林, 王雪飞, 姬旭, 陈鹏, 王少松. 超声引导下手法压迫联合小剂量凝血酶注射治疗医源性股动脉假性动脉瘤[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 571-575.
阅读次数
全文


摘要