两种连接管在血液透析联合血液灌流治疗中的临床应用效果  

Clinical application of two kinds of connecting tubes in hemodialysis combined with perfusion

作　　者：王潘[1] 卢伟[2] 林璟华[1] 肖俊南[1] 唐春苑[2] Wang Pan Lu Wei Lin Jinghua Xiao Junnan. Tang Chunyuan(Department of Nephrology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510080, China)

机构地区：[1]广州医科大学附属第二医院肾内血液净化中心,510260 [2]中山大学附属第一医院血液净化中心,广州510080

出　　处：《中国实用护理杂志》2017年第15期1184-1187,共4页Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing

摘　　要：目的 探讨2种不同的连接管在血液透析联合血液灌流治疗回血中的临床应用效果.方法 选取25例患者,采取自身对照方法,分为观察组和对照组.观察组使用多功能连接管进行血液透析联合血液灌流治疗8次,对照组采用常规连接管进行血液透析联合血液灌流治疗8次,分别比较2组灌流器卸载时间、所用0.9%氯化钠量、卸载时血液溢出情况、治疗过程中患者发生变态反应的例次、治疗结束后透析器及管路凝血情况.结果 2组患者均无出现变态反应;2组在回血所用0.9%氯化钠量方面比较差异无统计学意义（t=46.412,P=0.307）;对照组有15例出现血液外溢情况,而观察组未发生血液外溢;对照组灌流器卸载时间为（4.43±0.14）min,观察组为（3.02±0.11）min,2组比较差异有统计学意义（t=10.784,P=0.003）.对照组治疗结束后透析器和管路发生Ⅰ、Ⅱ级凝血分别为12、2例,观察组分别为5、0例,均无Ⅲ级凝血病例,2组比较差异有统计学意义（χ^2=10.667,P=0.01）.结论 在血液透析联合血液灌流治疗中,多功能管路的使用简单方便,效果优于常规管路,值得临床推广使用.Objective To explore the clinical effect of two different connecting tubes in hemodialysis combined with hemoperfusion. Methods A total of 25 patients were selected and divided into observation group and control group by self- control method. In the observation group, the hemodialysis combined with hemoperfusion was used 8 times, and the control group was treated with hemodialysis combined with hemoperfusion 8 times using conventional connecting tube. The time of the unloading of the perfusate and the amount of physiological saline required were compared between the two groups. There was no blood spillover during the unloading of the perfusate, the number of cases of allergic reaction during the treatment, and the coagulation of the dialyzer and the pipeline after the treatment. Results There was no allergic reaction in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the amount of saline needed to return blood （t=46.412, P=0.307）. In the control group, there was 15 cases of blood spillover, while the observation group did not show blood spillover. There was significant difference between the two groups in unloading perfusion time（4.43±0.14）min vs. （3.02±0.11） min （t=10.784, P=0.003）. The level Ⅰ and Ⅱ blood coagulation of dialyzer and pipeline was 12, 2 cases in the control group after the treatment and 5, 0 case in the observation group, no level Ⅲ blood coagulation cases, and there was a significant difference between the two groups （χ^2=10.667, P〈0.01）. Conclusion In the hemodialysis combined with hemoperfusion therapy, multi-function group of the application effect is superior to conventional piping, is worthy of clinical application.

关 键 词：肾透析 血液灌流 多功能连接管 密闭式预冲 

分 类 号：R473.5[医药卫生—护理学]