机构地区:[1]成都军区总医院输血科,四川成都610083 [2]四川省第二中医医院 [3]四川省妇幼保健院
出 处:《中国输血杂志》2018年第3期258-260,共3页Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion
摘 要:目的比较普通冰冻血浆和病毒灭活血浆用于血浆置换治疗慢加急性肝衰竭的临床疗效,评价病毒灭活血浆在血浆置换中应用价值。方法回顾性收集本院2015年1—10月慢加急性肝衰竭患者60例,根据使用血浆类型不同分为2组:普通冰冻血浆组和病毒灭活血浆组,观察2组患者血浆置换前后的白细胞计数、凝血指标、生化指标和疗效情况。结果 2组患者血浆置换治疗前后WBC(×109/L)普通冰冻组7.85±3.51 vs 11.04±7.29(P〈0.01);病毒灭活组6.37±2.19 vs 7.66±3.74(P〈0.05)。置换前后生化指标有明显改善:普通冰冻组TBIL(μmol/L)364.37±115.31 vs 233.11±102.67(P〈0.01);Abl(g/L)32.12±4.25 vs 30.22±3.73(P〈0.01);ALT(U/L)273.73±360.46 vs117.70±136.60(P〈0.01);AST(U/L)258.04±336.85 vs 117.90±99.07(P〈0.01);病毒灭活组TBIL(μmol/L)331.70±127.44 vs 224.91±75.87(P〈0.01);Abl(g/L)32.47±2.48 vs 29.75±2.53(P〈0.01);ALT(U/L)524.45±398.71 vs177.47±156.48(P〈0.01);AST(U/L)324.79±333.49 vs 123.00±96.97(P〈0.01)。置换前后凝血指标比较:普通冰冻组PT(s)18.71±6.43 vs 17.21±6.17(P〉0.05);APTT(s)46.51±15.27 vs 46.64±14.00(P〉0.05);FIB(g/L)1.68±0.84 vs 1.42±0.78(P〉0.05);病毒灭活组PT(s)16.90±5.54 vs 17.29±2.44(P〉0.05);APTT(s)47.63±15.29 vs50.91±9.96(P〉0.05);FIB(g/L)1.73±1.53 vs 1.73±1.53(P〈0.05)。2组患者治疗后的有效率差异没有统计学意义(P〉0.05)。结论普通冰冻血浆和病毒灭活血浆用于血浆置换治疗慢加急性肝衰竭的临床疗效没有差别,从安全输血考虑,建议使用病毒灭活血浆。Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy of ordinary frozen plasma and virus-free plasma in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety level of virus-free plasma in plasma exchange.Methods Retrospective data from patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure receiving the exchange therapy from January2015 to October 2015 was acquired and divided into two groups based on plasma types: the ordinary frozen plasma group and the virus-free plasma group. We observed the white blood cells level,blood coagulation indexes and other biochemical indicators in the two groups before and after the plasma exchange. The efficiency and mortality after treatment were also investigated. Results The common frozen plasma group pre and post treatment: WBC( × 109/L) 7. 85 ± 3. 51 vs 11. 04 ± 7. 29( P〈0. 01),Biochemical indexes: TBIL( μmol/L) 364. 37±115. 31 vs 233. 11±102. 67( P〈0. 01); Abl( g/L) 32. 12± 4. 25 vs30. 22±3. 73( P〈0. 01); ALT( U/L) 273. 73 ± 360. 46 vs 117. 70 ± 136. 60( P〈0. 01); AST( U/L) 258. 04 ± 336. 85 vs117. 90±99. 07( P〈0. 01); Blood coagulation indexes: PT( s) 18. 71±6. 43 vs 17. 21±6. 17( P〉0. 05); APTT( s) 46. 51±15. 27 vs 46. 64±14. 00( P〉0. 05); FIB( g/L) 1. 68±0. 84 vs 1. 42±0. 78( P〉0. 05); The virus-free plasma group pre and post treatment: WBC( × 109/L) 6. 37 ± 2. 19 vs 7. 66 ± 3. 74( P〈0. 05),Biochemical indexes: TBIL( μmol/L) 331. 70 ±127. 44 vs 224. 91±75. 87( P〈0. 01); Abl( g/L) 32. 47±2. 48 vs 29. 75±2. 53( P〈0. 01); ALT( U/L) 524. 45±398. 71 vs177. 47±156. 48( P〈0. 01); AST( U/L) 324. 79±333. 49 vs 123. 00±96. 97( P〈0. 01). Blood coagulation indexes: PT( s)16. 90±5. 54 vs 17. 29±2. 44( P〉0. 05); APTT( s) 47. 63± 15. 29 vs 50. 91± 9. 96( P〉0. 05); FIB( g/L) 1. 73± 1. 53 vs1. 73±1. 53( P〈0. 05). There is no significant difference in the improvem
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...