不同预冲方法在血浆吸附治疗的临床应用效果研究  

Study on Clinical Application Effect of Different Piercing Methods of the Plasma Adsorption Treatment

作　　者：燕朋波[1] 李国强[1] 孙亮[1] 李国锋[1] 全金梅[1] YAN Peng-bo;LI Guo-qiang;SUN Liang;LI Guo-feng;QUAN Jin-mei(Department of Respiratory and ICU,Affiliated Hospital of Armed Police Logistics College, Tianjin 300162, China)

机构地区：[1]武警后勤学院附属医院呼吸与重症医学科,天津300162

出　　处：《中国医疗设备》2016年第12期116-119,共4页China Medical Devices

基　　金：天津市自然科学基金(16JCYBJC27500);武警后勤学院附属医院种子基金专利项目(FYZ 201581)

摘　　要：目的探讨两种不同的血液灌流器预冲方法对连续性血浆吸附治疗的临床应用效果研究。方法纳入行连续性血浆吸附治疗的急性药物中毒患者126例次随机分为两组,每组63例次,分别采取标准操作规程(A组)、快速高浓度肝素预冲方法(B组)。对比分析A、B两组所采用预冲方法在治疗开始后0.5、3、6 h患者的凝血功能,血液灌流器预冲时间,血滤器动脉压、滤前压、静脉压、跨膜压、滤压降。结果两组患者在抗凝方式,血浆吸附治疗时间、使用血液灌流器数量,治疗开始后0.5、3、6 h凝血功能,动脉压、滤前压、静脉压、跨膜压、滤压降比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者在血液灌流器预冲时间有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 A、B两组患者所采用的预冲方法临床应用效果相同,但是B组相当于A组缩短了血液灌流器预冲时间,并且B组采用的简化预冲方法,避免了因反复更换液体引起的感染风险,具备临床推广应用价值。Objective To explore the clinical application effects of two different blood perfusion piercingmethods on the continuous plasma adsorption treatment. Methods 126 patients who need to conductcontinuous plasma adsorption treatment after acute drug poisoning were randomly divided into groupA and B. Each group includes 63 cases, cases of group A are taken standard operating procedure whilethose of group B were conducted high concentration of heparin piercing method quickly. Contrastiveanalysis were made to analyze the blood coagulation function, blood perfusion piercing time, blood filterarterial pressure, pressure before filtering, venous pressure, transmembrane pressure, filtering blood dropof the two groups at 0.5, 3 and 6 h after treated with different piercing methods. Results Comparativedifference of the two groups of patients had no statistical significance (P>0.05) in anticoagulation,plasma adsorption treatment time, number of hemoperfusion apparatus used, blood coagulationfunction at 0.5, 3 and 6 h after treatment, arterial pressure, pressure before filtering, venous pressure,transmembrane pressure and filtering blood drop; while their hemoperfusion apparatus piercing time wasstatistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Group A and B have the same clinical application effectsthough treated with different piercing methods. Compared with Group A, group B shortens the timeof hemoperfusion piercingtime, simplifies the piercing method, avoids the risk of infection caused byrepeated replacement of liquid, thus having clinical application value.

关 键 词：血液灌流器 血浆吸附 中毒 预冲方法 

分 类 号：R459.7[医药卫生—急诊医学]