Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 26, 2021; 9(6): 1284-1292
Published online Feb 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1284
Published online Feb 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1284
Table 1 Baseline data were compared between the two groups
Group | n | Year | Sex | Basic diseases | APACHE ІІ | AKI | |||||
Men | Women | Trauma | Cardiovascular disease | Cerebrovascular disease | Other | ІІ | Ш | ||||
Alprostadil group | 50 | 61.7 ± 8.0 | 29 | 21 | 13 | 10 | 20 | 7 | 23.6 ± 2.7 | 29 | 21 |
Control group | 50 | 60.4 ± 10.3 | 32 | 18 | 15 | 6 | 23 | 5 | 24.0 ± 2.5 | 33 | 17 |
t/χ2 | 0.705 | 0.378 | 1.676 | -0.769 | 0.679 | ||||||
P | 0.483 | 0.539 | 0.642 | 0.444 | 0.410 |
Table 2 Comparison of serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and kidney injury molecule-1 levels between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | n | Scr (μmol/L) | BUN (mmol/L) | KIM-1 (pg/mL) | |||
Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | ||
Alprostadil group | 50 | 448.1 ± 95.2 | 180.6 ± 34.7ab | 17.8 ± 3.9 | 8.1 ± 1.8ab | 1338.2 ± 202.1 | 787.4 ± 144.2ab |
Control group | 50 | 420.8 ± 81.7 | 207.1 ± 42.4a | 17.3 ± 3.4 | 9.3 ± 2.0a | 1310.3 ± 231.8 | 855.8 ± 153.9a |
T value | 1.539 | -3.420 | 0.683 | -3.154 | 0.642 | -2.293 | |
P value | 0.127 | 0.001 | 0.496 | 0.002 | 0.523 | 0.024 | |
Group | n | NAGL (ng/mL) | IL-8 (ng/mL) | ||||
Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | ||||
Alprostadil group | 50 | 126.9 ± 16.4 | 89.5 ± 11.0ab | 58.3 ± 9.1 | 36.8 ± 7.0ab | ||
Control group | 50 | 130.0 ± 20.1 | 96.7 ± 12.4a | 56.8 ± 8.3 | 41.0 ± 8.3a | ||
T value | -0.845 | -3.071 | 0.861 | -2.735 | |||
P value | 0.400 | 0.003 | 0.391 | 0.007 |
Table 3 Comparison of renal function indices between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | n | Renal resistance index | Partial pressure of oxygen in urine (mmHg) | ||
Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | Before treatment | 7 d after treatment | ||
Alprostadil group | 50 | 0.74 ± 0.06 | 0.65 ± 0.05ab | 51.32 ± 10.32 | 65.06 ± 9.04ab |
Control group | 50 | 0.73 ± 0.07 | 0.68 ± 0.06a | 52.40 ± 9.64 | 59.25 ± 8.75a |
T value | 0.767 | -2.716 | -0.541 | 3.265 | |
P value | 0.445 | 0.008 | 0.590 | 0.002 |
Table 4 Comparison of clinical effect between two groups, n (%)
Group | n | Cure | Improve | Ineffective |
Alprostadil group | 50 | 32 (64.00) | 14 (28.00) | 4 (8.00) |
Control group | 50 | 21 (42.00) | 22 (44.00) | 7 (14.00) |
Z value | -2.154 | |||
P value | 0.031 |
Table 5 Comparison of urine volume recovery time and adverse reactions between the two groups
Group | n | Injection spot ache | Abdominal distention | Incidence of adverse reactions (%) |
Alprostadil group | 50 | 2 | 4 | 6 (12.00) |
Control group | 50 | 0 | 2 | 2 (4.00) |
χ2 value | 2.174 | |||
P value | 0.14 |
- Citation: Jia Y, Liu LL, Su JL, Meng XH, Wang WX, Tian C. Effect of alprostadil in the treatment of intensive care unit patients with acute renal injury. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(6): 1284-1292
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i6/1284.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1284