中国医药科学
中國醫藥科學
중국의약과학
CHINA MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
2014年
21期
202-204
,共3页
创伤性休克%传统补液法%亚休克疗法
創傷性休剋%傳統補液法%亞休剋療法
창상성휴극%전통보액법%아휴극요법
Traumatic shock%Traditional rehydration treatment%Sub-shock therapy
目的：探讨不同补液方法在院前急救治疗创伤性休克患者中的应用效果。方法收集我院2011年11月～2014年3月来我院就诊的创伤性休克患者131例，按照随机数字表法将患者分为两组，Ⅰ组65例，Ⅱ组66例，Ⅰ组患者采用传统补液法治疗，Ⅱ组患者采用亚休克疗法治疗，比较两组治疗＜1h、治疗1～2h、治疗＞2h 病死率，并发症发生情况及其他各项指标。结果 I 组治疗1～2h 病死率、总病死率与Ⅱ组比较较高（P ＜0.05），Ⅰ组严重并发症发生率（38.46%）与Ⅱ组（19.69%）比较较高（P ＜0.05）。Ⅰ组血红蛋白、血小板计数、红细胞压积与Ⅱ组比较较低，凝血酶原时间、输液量与Ⅱ组比较较高（P ＜0.05）。结论亚休克疗法在院前急救治疗创伤性休克中的临床疗效与传统补液法比较有显著优势，可以使输液量及严重并发症减少，有利于病死率的降低，提高患者的生活质量。
目的：探討不同補液方法在院前急救治療創傷性休剋患者中的應用效果。方法收集我院2011年11月～2014年3月來我院就診的創傷性休剋患者131例，按照隨機數字錶法將患者分為兩組，Ⅰ組65例，Ⅱ組66例，Ⅰ組患者採用傳統補液法治療，Ⅱ組患者採用亞休剋療法治療，比較兩組治療＜1h、治療1～2h、治療＞2h 病死率，併髮癥髮生情況及其他各項指標。結果 I 組治療1～2h 病死率、總病死率與Ⅱ組比較較高（P ＜0.05），Ⅰ組嚴重併髮癥髮生率（38.46%）與Ⅱ組（19.69%）比較較高（P ＜0.05）。Ⅰ組血紅蛋白、血小闆計數、紅細胞壓積與Ⅱ組比較較低，凝血酶原時間、輸液量與Ⅱ組比較較高（P ＜0.05）。結論亞休剋療法在院前急救治療創傷性休剋中的臨床療效與傳統補液法比較有顯著優勢，可以使輸液量及嚴重併髮癥減少，有利于病死率的降低，提高患者的生活質量。
목적：탐토불동보액방법재원전급구치료창상성휴극환자중적응용효과。방법수집아원2011년11월～2014년3월래아원취진적창상성휴극환자131례，안조수궤수자표법장환자분위량조，Ⅰ조65례，Ⅱ조66례，Ⅰ조환자채용전통보액법치료，Ⅱ조환자채용아휴극요법치료，비교량조치료＜1h、치료1～2h、치료＞2h 병사솔，병발증발생정황급기타각항지표。결과 I 조치료1～2h 병사솔、총병사솔여Ⅱ조비교교고（P ＜0.05），Ⅰ조엄중병발증발생솔（38.46%）여Ⅱ조（19.69%）비교교고（P ＜0.05）。Ⅰ조혈홍단백、혈소판계수、홍세포압적여Ⅱ조비교교저，응혈매원시간、수액량여Ⅱ조비교교고（P ＜0.05）。결론아휴극요법재원전급구치료창상성휴극중적림상료효여전통보액법비교유현저우세，가이사수액량급엄중병발증감소，유리우병사솔적강저，제고환자적생활질량。
Objective To explore the application effect of different rehydration methods in treatment of patients with traumatic shock in pre-hospital emergency. Methods 131 cases of patients with traumatic shock in our hospital from November 2011 to March 2014 were collected, according to the random number table, patients were divided into two groups, 65 cases in group Ⅰ , 66 in group Ⅱ .patients in group Ⅰ were given traditional rehydration treatment, while patients in group Ⅱ were given sub-shock therapy. The mortality, complications, and other indicators were compared between the two groups in treatment < 1h, treatment 1-2h, treatment > 2h. Results The mortality in treatment 1-2h ,total mortality of group I were higher than that of group Ⅱ (P < 0.05), the incidence of serious complications in group I (38.46%) was relatively higher than that of group Ⅱ (19.69%) (P < 0.05). The hemoglobin platelet count and hematocrit in group I were relatively lower than that of group Ⅱ , prothrombin time, fluid volume in group Ⅰ were relatively higher than that of group Ⅱ (P < 0.05). Conclusion Sub-shock therapy in the pre-hospital treatment of traumatic shock has significant advantages in clinical efficacy than the traditional infusion method. Sub-shock therapy can reduce the infusion volume and the serious complications, help to reduce mortality and improve the quality of life of patients.
