Clinical Features and Risk Factors for Critical Cases of Scrub Typhus in 175 Children
-
摘要:
目的 分析儿童恙虫病临床表现,探讨儿童恙虫病的临床特点及可能进展为重症病例危险因素,为临床医生尽早明确诊断及识别重症患者提供依据。 方法 回顾性分析昆明市儿童医院2017年至2021年确诊的恙虫病患者病例资料,将纳入对象分为非重症组与重症组,对比各组病例症状、体征、实验室数据、治疗及转归等;将单因素分析中差异有统计学意义的指标纳入多因素Logistic回归分析,对回归分析中有意义的指标绘制识别重症病例的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)。 结果 纳入175例病例,非重症组145例(82.9%),重症30例(17.1%);173例好转/治愈,2例死亡。患儿均有发热(100%),体征上焦痂或溃疡占比最高(85.7%),其次为肝脏肿大、淋巴结肿大;与非重症组相比,重症组咳嗽、水肿、肝脏肿大发生率较高,差异有统计学意义(P均 < 0.05);实验室数据发现纳入病例中嗜酸性粒细胞计数(EOS)和血小板(PLT)减少,谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、谷草转氨酶(AST)、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)、C反应蛋白(CRP)、降钙素原(PCT)升高;重症组与非重症组比较,PLT、EOS、白蛋白(ALB)、纤维蛋白原(FIB)降低(P均 < 0.05),ALT、AST、LDH、CRP、PCT升高(P均 < 0.05),凝血酶原时间(PT)、部分凝血酶原时间(APTT)延长(P均 < 0.05)。多因素Logistic 回归分析显示PLT减少(OR:0.980,95%CI 0.966~0.994,P < 0.05)、LDH升高(OR:1.002,95%CI 1.000~1.004,P < 0.05)是恙虫病发展成重症病例的危险因素。PLT、LDH可用于鉴别诊断重症恙虫病,两者联合诊断灵敏度为89.7%,特异度为76.6%。 结论 在恙虫病流行季节,发热伴或不伴焦痂或溃疡、有肝脏及淋巴结肿大,实验室指标有嗜酸性粒细胞减少、血小板减少、谷丙转氨酶、谷草转氨酶、乳酸脱氢酶升高有助于诊断恙虫病。血小板减少、乳酸脱氢酶升高是儿童重症恙虫病患者的危险因素。PLT < 55.5×109/L、LDH > 692U/L早期识别儿童重症恙虫病具有一定诊断价值。 Abstract:Objective To analyze the clinical manifestations of scrub typhus in children , and the risk factors that may progress to critical cases were discussed, so as to provide a basis for clinicians to diagnose and identify critical patients as soon as possible. Methods The data of scrub typhus patients diagnosed in Kunming Children’s Hospital from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The subjects were divided into non-critical group and critical group, and the symptoms, signs, laboratory data, treatment and outcome of each group were compared. The indexes with statistically significant differences in univariate analysis were included in multivariate Logistic regression analysis, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for identifying severe cases was drawn for the indexes that were significant in regression analysis. Results Among the enrolled 175 cases, 145 cases (82.9%) were in the non-critical group and 30 cases (17.1%) in the critical group. There was 2 patients died and other 173 patients were improved or cured after treatment. All the children had fever (100%), eschar or ulcer were common (85.7%), followed by hepatomegaly and lymphadenopathy. Compared with the non-severe group, the incidence of cough, edema and hepatomegaly was higher in critical group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Laboratory tests of all enrolled cases demonstrated that the levels of eosinophils (EOS), platelet counts (PLT) and albumin (ALB) significantly decreased, and the levels of alanine transaminase (ALT), aspertate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) , C reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) increased. Compared with non-critical group, PLT, EOS, ALB and FIBRinogen (FIB) in critical group were decreased (ALL P < 0.05), ALT, AST, LDH, CRP and PCT in critical group were increased (P < 0.05), prothrombin time (PT) and partial prothrombin time (APTT) were prolonged (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that PLT (OR:0.980, 95%CI 0.966~0.994, P < 0.05) and LDH (OR: 1.002, 95%CI 1.000~1.004, P < 0.05) were risk factors for scrub typhus to develop into critical cases. The sensitivity and specificity of PLT and LDH were 89.7% and 76.6% respectively. Conclusion During the epidemic season, clinical manifestations including fever, with or without eschar or ulceration, hepatomegaly, lymphadenopathy and laboratory findings including decresesd EOS, PLT and elevation of ALT, AST and LDH can help the diagnosis of scrub typhus. Decreased PLT and increased LDH are risk factors for the development for critical scrub typhus in children. -
Key words:
- Children’s scrub typhus /
- Clinical features /
- Critical scrub typhus /
- Diagnosis /
- Risk factors
-
表 1 患者一般资料[M(P25,P75)/n(%)]
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Patients with scrub typhus [M(P25,P75)/n(%)]
指标 总体(n = 175) 非重症组(n = 145) 重症组(n = 30) χ2 /Z P 年龄 4.4(2.7,7.4) 4.8(2.8,7.8) 3.5(1.6,6.0) 1.88 0.060 性别(男/女) 93/82 76/69 17/13 0.181 0.671 居住地 城市 18(10.3) 18(12.4) 0(0) 2.915 0.088 农村 157(89.7) 127(87.6) 30(100) 草地丛林接触史 有 102(58.3) 93(64.1) 9(30) 11.915 0.001* 不详 73(41.7) 52(35.9) 21(70) 院前发热 小于7 d 61(34.9) 47(32.4) 14(46.7) 2.224 0.136 大于7 d 114(65.1) 98(67.6) 16(53.3) 热程 8.5(7,11) 8(7,10.5) 10(7.5,13.5) 1.981 0.048* *P < 0.05。 表 2 临床症状、体征、诊断及预后[M(P25,P75)/n(%)]
Table 2. Clinical profile and outcome of patients with scrub typhus [M(P25,P75)/n(%)]
指标 总体(n = 175) 非重症组(n = 145) 重症组(n = 30) χ2 P 症状 发热 175(100) 145(100) 30(100) 咳嗽 88(50) 63(43.4) 25(82.8) 15.818 < 0.001* 头痛 34(19.4) 29(20) 5(16.7) 0.190 0.663 呕吐 32(18.3) 26(17.9) 6(20) 0.071 0.790 腹痛 39(22.3) 32(22.1) 7(23.3) 0.023 0.880 体征 焦痂或溃疡 150(85.7) 128(88.3) 22(73.3) 3.394 0.065 淋巴结肿大 81(46.3) 68(46.9) 13(43.3) 0.127 0.722 皮疹 50(28.6) 44(30.3) 6(20.0) 1.303 0.254 肝肿大 83(47.4) 59(40.7) 24(80) 15.405 < 0.001* 脾肿大 68(38.9) 55(37.9) 13(43.3) 0.305 0.581 水肿 63(36) 44(30.3) 19(63.3) 11.741 0.001* 初诊误诊 80(45.7) 56(38.6) 24(80) 16.141 < 0.001* 住院天数(d) 7(6,9) 7(6,8) 13.5(12,17.75) 7.705 < 0.001* 预后 预后好(治愈/好转) 173(98.9) 145(100) 28(93.3) Fisher精确 0.029* 预后差(死亡) 2(1.1) 0 2(6.7) *P < 0.05。 表 3 150例患者焦痂或溃疡分布部位[n(%)]
Table 3. Location of eschar or ulcer in 150 patients [n(%)]
部位 n 占比 部位 n 占比 头皮 15 10.0 背部 2 1.3 耳廓* 14 9.3 腰部 5 3.0 耳道 1 0.7 腹股沟* 14 9.3 颈部 9 6.0 髂前 1 0.7 肩部 5 3.3 会阴部* 18 12.0 上臂* 3 2.0 肛周 3 2 肘部 7 4.6 大腿部 6 4 腋窝 18 12.0 脚趾 1 0.7 前胸部 8 5.3 腘窝 4 2.7 下腹部 9 6.0 臀部 6 4 手腕 1 0.7 *表示包括溃疡和焦痂,溃疡共4例,分别分布于耳廓、上臂、腹股沟、会阴。 表 4 实验室指标[
$ \bar x \pm s $ /n(%)/M(P25,P75)]Table 4. Laboratory test results in children with Scrub typhus [
$ \bar x \pm s $ /n(%)/M(P25,P75)]指标 总体(n = 175) 非重症组(n = 145) 重症组(n = 30) 差值(95%CI) Z/t/χ2 P 血常规、炎症指标 WBC(×109/L) 8.7(4.9,11.6) 8.7(4.9,11.4) 9.2(6.4,13.6) −0.9(−2.9,0.9) −1.014 0.311 EO(×109 /L) 0(0.00,0.02) 0.01(0.00,0.02) 0(0.00,0.00) 0(0,0.01) −2.978 0.003* Hb(g/L) 109.9 ± 17.4 112.3 ± 16.2 97.7 ± 18.7 14.6(7.9-21.2) 4.312 < 0.001* PLT(×109 /L) 97.5(55.0,162.0) 107.0(69.0,178.0) 30.0(22.6,58.0) 70.0(49.0,95.0) −5.940 < 0.001* CRP(mg/L) 35.0(15.5,67.4) 32.5(13.5,54.4) 63.0(21.9,128.2) −22.5(−45.0,−6.0) −2.586 0.010* PCT(ng/l) 1.9(0.6,4.4) 1.6(0.6,3.6) 4.4(1.7,6.5) −1.9(−3.5,−1.0) −3.700 < 0.001* 血生化 ALT(U/L) 71.0(41.0,133.5) 67.2(38.0,120.0) 114.0(57.5,214.0) −34.0(−71.4,−8.0) −2.536 0.011* AST(U/L) 91.5(54.7,177.8) 77.0(53,139.5) 224.0(112.0,485.0) −136.0(−209.0,−74.0) −4.913 < 0.001* TBil(umol/L) 8.8(6.5,11.9) 8.2(6.4,10.8) 12.0(8.8,28.0) −4.1(−6.6,−1.9) −3.647 < 0.001* ALB(g/L) 31.72 ± 6.11 32.66 ± 5.52 27.03 ± 6.83 5.63(3.32,7.94) 4.807 < 0.001* SCr(μmol/L) 28.9(23.0,39.0) 28.8(23.0,38.5) 30.0(23.0,60.7) −3.0(−9.0,2.0) −1.119 0.263 BUN(mmol/L) 3.8(3.0,5.0) 3.6(2.8,4.5) 5.9(3.9,11.2) −2.1(−3.9,−1.1) −4.723 < 0.001* UA(μmol/L) 245.5(201.8,301.0) 236.0(194.0,290.5) 288.0(231.8,517.0) −62.0(−108.0,−23.0) −3.099 0.002* CK-MB(U/L) 20.0(16.0,29.0) 19.0(15.0,26.0) 29.0(21.0,50.0) 20.0(16.0,29.0) −3.985 < 0.001* LDH(U/L) 615.5(471.5,807.0) 575.0(444.0,749.5) 891.0(673.0,1466.8) −366.0(−541.0,−224.0) −4.951 < 0.001* 凝血筛查 PT(s) 13.0(12.0,14.1) 12.9(12.0,13.8) 15.7(13.9,18.3) −3.0(−4.0,−2.0) −5.873 < 0.001* APTT(s) 38.4(32.5,44.7) 37.0(31.7,42.9) 47.5(39,55.3) −9.9(−14.6,−5.7) −4.432 < 0.001* FIB(g/L) 2.3(1.5,2.9) 2.4(1.6,3.0) 1.1(0.6,2.3) 1.0(0.6,1.5) −4.342 < 0.001* 外斐试验 n(%) 43(47.3) 36(43.4) 7(87.5) 44.1(43.8,44.4) 4.067 0.044* 血液立克次体PCR n(%) 28(84.8) 20(87.0) 5(71.4) 15.6(15.2,16.0) 0.149 0.699 *P < 0.05。 表 5 并发症[n(%)]
Table 5. Complications Observed in Patients With Scrub Typhus [n(%)]
并发疾病 总体(n = 175) 非重症(n = 145) 重症(n = 30) χ2 P 严重肝功能损害 43(24.6) 25(17.2) 18(60) 24.521 < 0.001* 重度血小板减少 44(25.1) 22(15.2) 22(73.3) 44.675 < 0.001* 脑炎、脑膜脑炎 79(45.1) 71(49) 8(26.7) 4.991 0.025* 肺炎 54(30.8) 33(22.7) 21(70.0) 26.001 < 0.001* 急性呼吸衰竭 5(2.9) 0 5(16.7) Fisher精确 < 0.001* 凝血功能障碍(DIC) 1(0.6) 0 1(3.3) Fisher精确 0.171 急性肾功损伤 12(6.9) 4(2.8) 8(26.7) 18.660 < 0.001* 上消化道出血 4(2.3) 0 4(13.3) Fisher精确 0.001* 噬血细胞综合征 16(9.1) 1(0.7) 15(50) 66.944 < 0.001* 肺出血 4(2.3) 0 4(13.3) Fisher精确 0.001* 急性阑尾炎 3(1.7) 3(2) 0 Fisher精确 1.000 急性呼吸窘迫综合征 5(2.9) 0 5(16.7) Fisher精确 < 0.001* 休克 1(0.6) 0 1(3.3) Fisher精确 0.171 DIC:弥散性血管内凝血。*P < 0.05。 表 6 重症恙虫病Logistic回归分析
Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of critical scrub typhus
变量 B 标准误 Wald卡方值 自由度 P OR OR值的95%CI PLT −0.020 0.007 7.765 1 0.005* 0.980 0.966~0.994 ALB −0.057 0.066 0.746 1 0.388 0.944 0.829~1.075 LDH 0.002 0.001 5.289 1 0.021* 1.002 1.000~1.004 FIB −0.106 0.303 0.123 1 0.726 0.899 0.497~1.628 常量 0.322 1.984 0.026 1 0.871 1.380 OR值为优势比,95%CI为95%置信区间。*P < 0.05。 表 7 PLT、LDH识别儿童重症恙虫病效能
Table 7. PLT and LDH recognition of critical scrub typhus in children
指标 AUC 标准差 P 95%CI 最佳诊 断值 约登 指数 灵感度(%) 特异度(%) LR+ LR- PLT 0.8498 0.0403 < 0.0001* 0.7707~0.9289 < 55.5×109/L 0.600 84.1 75.9 3.489 0.209 LDH 0.7916 0.0513 < 0.0001* 0.6911~0.8920 > 692U/L 0.456 75.9 69.7 2.505 0.346 PLT+LDH 0.888 0.036 < 0.001* 0.819~0.958 0.663 0.897 0.766 3.833 0.134 95%CI为AUC的95%置信区间,LR+为阳性似然比,LR-为阴性似然比。*P < 0.05。 -
[1] 岳玉娟,王玉姣,李贵昌,等. 2006-2018年中国大陆恙虫病高发区流行病学特征分析[J]. 疾病监测,2020,35(4):301-306. doi: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.2020.04.007 [2] 孙烨,史超,李新楼,等. 云南省2006-2013年恙虫病流行特征及影响因素研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志,2018,39(1):54-57. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.01.011 [3] 李兰娟, 任红. 传染病学[M]. 8版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 140—144. [4] 廖云珍,叶晓光,罗润齐. 恙虫病误诊原因分析[J]. 广东医学,2010,31(4):488-490. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9448.2010.04.036 [5] 方峰, 俞惠. 小儿传染病学[M]. 5版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020: 288—291. [6] Park S W,Lee C S,Lee C K,et al. Severity predictors ln eschar-positive scrub typhus androle of serum osteopontin[J]. Am J Trop Med Hyg,2011,85(5):924-930. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.11-0134 [7] 中华人民共和国国家健康委员会,国家中医药局. 儿童社区获得性肺炎诊疗规范(2019年版[J]. 中华临床感染病杂志,2019,12(1):6-13. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2397.2019.01.002 [8] 王卫平, 毛萌, 李廷玉, 等. 儿科学[M]. 第8版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 211-214. [9] 孙传兴. 临床疾病诊断治愈好转标准[M]. 北京: 人民军医出版社, 1998: 179. [10] Guichang L,Dongmei L,Yan L,et al. Epidemiology of scrub typhus in China,2006–2016[J]. Dis Surveillance,2018,33(2):139-143. doi: 10.3784/j..1003-9961.2018.02.007 [11] 彭琴,李武,邹杨鸿,等. 昆明市59例恙虫病患者的临床特征分析[J]. 中华地方病学杂志,2018,37(8):664-667. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4255.2018.08.015 [12] Subbalaxmi M V,Madisetty M K,Prasad A K,et al. Outbreak of scrub typhus in andhra pradesh-experience at a tertiary care hospital[J]. J Assoc Physicians India,2014,62(6):490-496. [13] Mittal M,Bondre V,Murhekar M,et al. Acute encephalitis syndrome in Gorakhpur,UttarPradesh,2016:Clinical and laboratory findings[J]. Pediatr Infect Dis J,2018,37(11):1101-1106. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002099 [14] Luna,Bajracharya. Scrub typhus in children at tribhuvan university teaching hospital in nepal[J]. Pediatric Health,Medicine and Therapeutics,2020,11:193-202. doi: 10.2147/PHMT.S253106 [15] Keller A,Hauptmann M,Kolbaum J,et al. (2014) Dissemination of orientia tsutsugamushi and inflammatory responses in a murine model of scrub typhus[J]. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases,2014,8(8):3064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003064 [16] Soong L,Shelite T R,Xing Y,etal. Type 1-skewed neuroinflammation and vascular damageassociated with Orientia tsutsugamushi infection in mice[J]. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases,2017,11(7):0005765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005765 [17] Jin Y M,Liang D S,Huang A R,et al. Clinical characteristics and effective treatments ofscrub typhus-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in children[J]. Journal of Adva Nced Research,2019,15:111-116. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2018.05.007 [18] 李春明,谢仁岐,王健华,等. 嗜酸性粒细胞减少和异常淋巴细胞的检出率升高在诊断恙虫病中的意义[J]. 中国医药科学,2017,7(15):158-160. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0616.2017.15.045 [19] Su Tung Hung,Liu Chun Jen,Chen Ding Shinn,etal. Milder clinical manifestation of scrub typhus in Kinmen,Taiwan[J]. J Formos Med Assoc,2013,112(4):201-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2012.02.002 [20] Ogawa M,Hagiwara T,Kishimoto T,et al. Scrub typhus in Japan:Epidemiology and clinical features of cases reported in 1998[J]. Am J Trop Med Hyg,2002,67(2):162-165. [21] Kannan Kavitha,John Rebecca,Kundu Debasree,et al. Performance of molecular and serologic tests for the diagnosis of scrub typhus[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis,2020,14(11):0008747. [22] 李柏成,张剑锋. 恙虫病致病机制及辅助检查研究进展[J]. 实用医学杂志,2019,35(16):2669-2672. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2019.16.034 [23] 张郴华. 恙虫病继发血小板减少的临床分析[J]. 临床医学工程,2014,21(4):463-464. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4659.2014.04.0463 [24] Lynn,Soong. Dysregulated Th1 immune and vascular responses in scrub typhus pathogenesis[J]. Journal of Immunology ,2018,200(4):1233-1240. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1701219 [25] Lefrançais E,Ortiz-Munoz G,Caudrillier A,et al. The lung is a site of platelet biogenesis and a reservoir for haematopoietic progenitors[J]. Nature,2017,544(7648):105-109. doi: 10.1038/nature21706 [26] Ogawa M,Hagiwara T,Kishimoto T,et al. Tsutsugamushi disease (scrub typhus) in Japan:Clinical features[J]. Kansenshogaku Zasshi,2001,75(5):359-364. doi: 10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.75.359 [27] Tachibana N,Shishime E,Murai K,et al. Clinical and etiological studies of tsutsugamushi disease in Miyazaki district:Correlation of serological type of R. tsutsugamushi to clinical feature[J]. Kansenshogaku Zasshi,1990,64(1):76-79. doi: 10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.64.76 [28] Venkategowda P M,Rao S M,Mutkule D P,et al. Scrub typhus:Clinical spectrum and outcome[J]. Indian J Crit Care Med,2015,19(4):208-213. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.154553 [29] Moon K M,Han M S,Rim C B,etal. Risk factors for mechanical ventilation in patients with scrub typhus admitted tointensive care unit at a University Hospital[J]. Tuberc Res pir Dis,2016,79(1):31-36.