ТЕХНИКА ИНЪЕКЦИЙ: РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ АНКЕТИРОВАНИЯ БОЛЬНЫХ САХАРНЫМ ДИАБЕТОМ В РОССИИ. НОВЫЕ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ РЕКОМЕНДАЦИИ ПО ТЕХНИКЕ ИНЪЕКЦИЙ

  • Published on
    04-Apr-2017

  • View
    220

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 38 3/2010

    : . .., ..

    , ( .. )

    . () 1 2 . . 200 (60 140 ), 6 . , 40 , - , , . . 51,715,1 , 11,99,1 . HbA1c 8,41,5%. 130 (65%) - -, 39 (19,5%) , 31 (15,5%) . 8 , 122 (61%) ; 12,7 32 (16%) ,10 31 (15,5%), 12 28 (14%), 6 19 (9,5%) 5 18 (9,0%) . 64 (32%) - , 25 (12,5%) . - . 87 (43,5%) : 62 - , 19 - ,5 , 1 . 113 (56,5%) . 83 (41,5%) , 42 (50,6% ) , 12 , 30 . HbA1c -, , , 9,5 8,2% - (=0,02). 106 (53%) ; 60 (30%) - , 28 (14,0%) , 9 (4,5%) ,19 (9,5%) .. , . , . , 2010 . : , ,

    The injection technique: results of a questionnaire study of diabetic patients in Russia. New international guidelines on the injectiontechniqueMelnikova O.G., Mayorov A.Yu.Endocrinological Research Centre

    Aim. To consider technical aspects of antihyperglycemic injection therapy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods. The analysis included 200 adult patients (60 men and 140 women) receiving injection therapy for at least 6 months. They filled a 40-iremquestionnaire designed to estimate socio-demographic parameters, the use of different devices for insulin injection, and the most frequent mistakesmade by the patients. Their mean age was 51.7+-15.1 years, duration of DM 11.9+-9.1 years, mean HbA1c level 8.4+-1.5%.Results. 130 (65%) patients used semiautomated injection pens, 39 (19.5%) disposable syringes, 31 (15.5%) both devices. Most patients (122, 61%)used 8 mm needles, 32 (16%) used 12.7 mm needles, 31 (15.5%) 10 mm, 28 (14%) 12 mm, 19 (9.5%) 6 mm, 18 (9.0%) 5 mm. 64 (32%) patientsused needles of different length, 25 (12.5%) could not give a definitive information about the needle length they used. Location of injection sites variedconsiderably in individual patients. 87 (43.5%) made injections within a single anatomic regions (62 into the anterior abdominal wall, 19 into theanterolateral surface of the thigh, 5 into shoulders, and 1 into buttocks. 113 (56.5%) patients made injections into two or more regions. 83 (41.5%)developed lipodystrophy at injection sites, 42 (50.6%) continued to use them for injections (12 did it on a regular basis and 30 occasionally). HbA1clevels were 9.5 and 8.2% in patients who made injections into affected sites and who had no lipodystrophic changes respectively (p=0.02). Over halfof the interviewed patients (106 or 53%) were informed about correct subcutaneous injection technique by the attending endocrinologist, 60 (30%)were taught by the nursing staff while staying in a hospital or visiting an endocrinological dispensary, 28 (14.%) were educated at Diabetes schools,9 (4.5%) when seeing the local therapist, and 19 (9.5%) by non-professionals. Conclusion. Many patients make serious mistakes when self-administering insulin. Incompliance with the guidelines on insulin injections leading tothe impairment of carbohydrate metabolism, the technical aspects of injections must be in the focus of attention of any practitioner. New (2010) in-ternational guidelines on the injection technique are overviewed.Key words: injection technique, insulin, questionnaire

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:10 PM Page 38

  • 393/2010

    - - ().

    -. , -1 (-1) [1, 2]. - , - -1. - [1, 3, 4]. , - (, , -), [5-12].

    , , . - . - , - , 3 [13-15]. , , - [16]. - [17-19]. , -.

    - - [20, 21]. , , - , , .

    - - , , - 1997 . [22]. - 19992000 . 7 [1, 23,24].

    - - . 2008 2009 . , 43 000 1 2 171 16 , . . (ThirdInjection Technique workshop in AtheNs (TITAN)), 2009 .

    , -, , . - 200 (60 , 140 -) 1 (70) 2 (130), . 51,715,1 , 11,99,1 . - (-, ) 6 , 8,48,5 , HbA1c 8,41,5%, 28,96,2 /2.

    1.

    , , - . , - , 40 (- , - , , -

    2

    (n=50)

    (n=50)

    (n=50)

    -(n=50)

    , n 8 3 24 4

    -, n 39 37 14 40

    -, n 3 10 12 6

    1

    (MSD)

    (n=50)

    (n=50)

    (n=50)

    -(n=50)

    ; 9; 41 16; 34 18; 32 17; 33

    , 57,611,8 49,614,9 52,915,3 46,616,3

    , 12,99,1 11,57,0 10,59,3 12,810,6

    , 5,28,9 6,67,1 4,45,9 9,610,3

    , 0,50,1 0,50,1 _ _

    , /2 31,76,0 28,75,2 31,66,9 27,45,1

    HbA1c, % 8,61,9 8,11,3 8,51,6 8,81,8

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:11 PM Page 39

  • 40 3/2010

    ). (12 ) - , - , - - HbA1c.

    130 (65%) -,39 (19,5%) , 31 (15,5%) - . 2.

    136 (68,0%) ; - 64 (32,0%). 8 , - 122 (61%) ; 12,7 32 (16%) , 10 31 (15,5%),12 28 (14%), 6 19 (9,5%) 5 18 (9,0%) .25 (12,5%) .

    - - . 87 (43,5%) -: 62 - , 19 - , 5 , 1 .

    113 (56,5%) . 82 - (53 , 18 ,6 , 5 ); 29 (20 , , 5 , , 3 , , 1 , ); 2 .

    , . , 157 (78,5%) , 15 10 , 33(16,5%) 8 5 , 10 (5%) 2 3 .

    172 (86%) . . 78 (45,3%) - . 46 (26,7%) -.

    83 (41,5%) , 54, 36, 26, 8 . 42 (50,6% ) , 12 , 30 . - HbA1c , - , , 9,5 8,2% (=0,02).

    32 (16%) , - . 119(59,5%) , .

    , , : 106 (53%) --, 44 (22%) - , 16 (8%) , 9(4,5%) . 28 (14%) . 19 (9,5%) ( ) - . , - , , (. 3). 76 (38%) - , - .

    60 (30%).

    - , .

    3

    ,

    , n (%)

    183 (91,5%)

    165 (82,5%)

    158 (79%)

    136 (68%)

    / 134 (67%)

    / 129 (64,5%)

    123 (61,5%)

    119 (59,5%)

    104 (52%)

    / 104 (52%)

    103 (51,5%)

    86 (43%)

    / 63 (31,5%)

    60 (30%)

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:11 PM Page 40

  • 413/2010

    -, , - . - , [8, 20]. - - . ( ), . - ( ) - , - , . - - , - , , / . , .

    - , - . , .

    , , , , - , [2426].

    , - . , , - , - .

    , , -, , -. .

    - . , - . - , , [1, 23]. - - , , , [27, 28]. (, 12,7 ) (, 8 ); . , , -. , -

    , , (5 6 ) (8 12,7 ) / [29, 30]. -, , , , - (4, 5 6 ) [2935]. 4 , - , , - .

    , . . , , .

    1. - , - .

    2. , , .

    3. , , : ; ;, -; ( , , -); - ; .

    - : , , - 27 [36, 37]. 2010 . - [38]. , - . - [39, 40], - , -: (- ), -1, - . , , , - : , , -, - .

    -. :

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:11 PM Page 41

  • 42 3/2010

    A ;B ;C . -

    .1. ,

    .2. , ( -

    ) .3. , ,

    -. ,

    , ( A2). , , . , , . - , - , . 1. , , .

    (. 4). 5 6 . - 6 . 5 6 ,

    , . - 8 . , , - .

    2. . - -1 , , -, . , - ; - - . - , .

    3. . - - . - ( , ), , - , 1 2.

    4. . - , - , .

    4

    **

    **

    5 6

    8 ()*

    90 5 45 6 8

    5 6 (

    )8 ()*

    , 8

    90 5 6 45 8

    * , , 8 .**, , , 45.

    . 1.

    1 2

    4 3

    . 2.

    1 2 3 41

    2

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:11 PM Page 42

  • 433/2010

    . - - , , - - .

    5. . - - . , - : ) - ; ) ; ) ; ) .

    6. . ( , ) (, ), - .

    7. . , , , , .

    8. 2. 2 , , , , , , - . - .

    9. . ( ) - , , . . - - .

    10. . ( -): ) , /; ) , , . - ( ):) (, ); ) - (, -, , ). , , (-) . () -. (, , , -) ( , ) - .

    - .

    1. Partanen T.M., Rissanen A. Insulin injection practices // Pract. Diab.

    Int. 2000. 17. . 252254.2. Baron A.D., Kim D., Weyer C. Novel peptides under development for the

    treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus // Curr. Drug. Targets.Immune. Endocr. Metabol. Disord. 2002. 2. . 6382.

    3. Hildebrandt P. Subcutaneous absorption of insulin in insulin-dependentdiabetic patients. Influences of species, physico-chemical properties of in-sulin and physiological factors // Danish. Medical. Bulletin. 1991. 38. . 337346.

    4. American Diabetes Association Position Statements: Insulin Administra-tion // Diabetes Care. 2004. 27. S106S107.

    5. Vaag A., Damgaard Pedersen K., Lauritzen M., Hildebrandt P., Beck-Nielsen H. Intramuscular versus subcutaneous injection of unmodified in-sulin; consequences for blood glucose control in patients with type 1diabetes mellitus // Diabetic. Medicine. 1990. 7. . 335342.

    6. Hildebrandt P. Subcutaneous absorption of insulin in insulin-dependentdiabetic patients. Influences of species, physico-chemical properties of in-sulin and physiological factors // Danish. Medical. Bulletin. 1991. 38. . 337346.

    7. Frid A Linde B. Clinically important differences in insulin absorption fromthe abdomen in IDDM // Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 1993. 21. . 137141.

    8. Johansson U., Amsberg S., Hannerz L., Wredling R., Adamson U., Ar-nqvist H.J., Lins P. Impaired Absorption of insulin Aspart from Lipohyper-trophic Injection Sites // Diabetes Care. 2005. 28. . 20252027.

    9. Thow J.C., Coulthard A., Home P.D. Insulin injection site tissue depths andlocalization of a simulated insulin bolus using a novel air contrast ultraso-nographic technique in insulin treated diabetic subjects // Diabetic Medi-cine. 1992. 9. . 915920.

    10. Thow J.C., Home P.D. Insulin injection technique: depth of injection is im-portant // BMJ. 1990. 301. . 34.

    11. Hildebrandt P. Skinfold thickness, local subcutaneous blood flow and in-sulin absorption in diabetic patients // Acta. Physiol. Scand. 1991. 603. . 4145.

    12. Vora J.P., Peters J.R., Burch A., Owens D.R. Relationship between Absor-ption of Radiolabeled Soluble Insulin Subcutaneous Blood Flow, and Ant-hropometry // Diabetes Care. 1992. 15. . 14841493.

    13. Lasagni C., Seidenari S. Echographic assessment of age-dependent va-riations of skin thickness // Skin Research and Technology. 1995. 1. . 8185.

    14. Huzaira M., Rius F., Rajadhyaksha M., Anderson R.R., Gonzlez S. Topo-graphic Variations in Normal Skin, as Viewed by In Vivo ReflectanceConfocal Microscopy // Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2001. 116. . 846852.

    15. Tan C.Y., Statham B., Marks R., Payne P.A. Skin thickness measuredby pulsed ultrasound: its reproducibility, validation and variability // Br.J. Dermatol. 1982. 106. . 657667.

    16. Frid A., Gunnarsson R., Gntner P., Linde B. Effects of accidental intra-muscular injection on insulin absorption in IDDM // Diabetes Care. 1988. 11. . 4145.

    17. Karges B., Boehm B.O., Karges W. Early hypoglycaemia after accidentalintramuscular injection of insulin glargine // Diabetic Medicine. 2005. 22. . 14441445.

    18. Frid A., stman J., Linde B. Hypoglycemia risk during exercise after intra-muscular injection of insulin in thigh in IDDM // Diabetes Care. 1990. 13. . 473477.

    19. Vaag A., Handberg A., Laritzen M. et al. Variation in absorption of NPHinsulin due to intramuscular injection // Diabetes Care. 1990. 13. . 7476.

    20. De Meijer P.H.E.M., Lutterman J.A., van Lier H.J.J., vant Laar A. The va-riability of the absorption of subcutaneously injected insulin; effect of in-jection technique and relation with brittleness // Diabetic Medicine. 1990. 7. . 499505.

    21. Strauss K. Insulin injection techniques // Practical Diabetes Internatio-nal. 1998. 15. . 181184.

    22. Strauss K. Insulin injection techniques: Report from the 1stInternational Insulin Injection Technique Workshop, Strasburg,France June 1997 // Practical Diabetes International. 1998. 15. . 1620.

    SD3_2010_G_OPA_05_Blok 11.1.10 12:11 PM Page 43

  • 44 3/2010

    23. Strauss K., De Gols H., Letondeur C., Matyjaszczyk M., Frid A. The se-cond injection technique event (SITE), May 2000, Barcelona,Spain // Practical Diabetes International. 2002. 19. . 1721.

    24. Strauss K., De Gols H., Hannet I., Partanen T.M., Frid A. A pan-Euro-pean epidemiologic study of insulin injection technique in patients withdiabetes // Practical Diabetes International 2002; 19: . 7176.

    25. Martinez L., Consoli S.M., Monnier L., Simon D., Wong O., Yomtov B.,Guron B., Benmedjahed K., Guillemin I., Arnould B. Studying the Hur-dles of Insulin Prescription (SHIP): development, scoring and initial vali-dation of a new self-administered questionnaire // Health Qual LifeOutcomes. 2007. 5. . 53.

    26. Cefalu W.T., Mathieu C., Davidson J., Freemantle N., Gough S., Cano-vatchel W., OPTIMIZE Coalition. Patients' perceptions of subcutaneousinsulin in the OPTIMIZE study: a multicenter follow-up study // DiabetesTechnol. Ther. 2008. 10. . 2538.

    27. Becker D. Individualized insulin therapy in children and adolescents withtype 1 diabetes // Acta Paediatr Suppi. 1998. 425. . 2024.

    28. Uzun S., lnanc N., Azal S. Determining optimal needle length for subcu-taneous insulin injection // Journal of Diabetes Nursing. 2001. 5. . 8387.

    29. Kreugel G., Keers J.C., Jongbloed A., Verweij-Gjaltema A.H., Wolffen-buttel B.H.R. The influence of needle length on glycemic control and pa-tient preference in obese diabetic patients // Diabetes. 2009. 58. A117.

    30. Schwartz S., Hassman D., Shelmet J., Sievers R., Weinstein R., Liang J.,Lyness W. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossovertrial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achievedwith a 31 gauge x 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge x 12.7 mm needlein obese patients with diabetes mellitus // Clin. Ther. 2004. 26. . 16631678.

    31. Birkebaek N., Solvig J., Hansen B., Jorgensen C., Smedegaard J., Chri-stiansen J. A 4mm needle reduces the risk of intramuscular injections wit-

    hout increasing backflow to skin surface in lean diabetic children andadults // Diabetes Care. 2008. 22. e65.

    32. Jamal R., Ross S.A., Parkes J.L., Pardo S., Ginsberg B.H. Role of injectiontechnique in use of insulin pens: prospective evaluation of a 31-gauge,8mm insulin pen needle // Endocr. Pract. 1999. 5. . 245250.

    33. Kreugel G., Beijer H.J.M., Kerstens M.N., ter Maaten J.C., Sluiter W.J.,Boot B.S. Influence of needle size for SC insulin administration on meta-bolic control and patient acceptance // European Diabetes Nursing. 2007. 4. . 15.

    34. Van Doorn L.G., A...

Recommended

View more >