山西医药杂志
山西醫藥雜誌
산서의약잡지
SHANXI MEDICAL JOURNAL
2015年
4期
374-376
,共3页
唐军亭%王立恒%王鹏%荣向园%张秋和
唐軍亭%王立恆%王鵬%榮嚮園%張鞦和
당군정%왕립항%왕붕%영향완%장추화
连续性血液滤过%血液滤过器%尿毒症%心包积液
連續性血液濾過%血液濾過器%尿毒癥%心包積液
련속성혈액려과%혈액려과기%뇨독증%심포적액
Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration%Blood filter%Uremia%Pericardial effusion
目的：探讨连续性血液滤过（CVVH）不同血液滤过器治疗尿毒症患者心包积液的疗效对比。方法选取2009年1月至2014年7月接受CVVH治疗的尿毒症伴心包积液患者203例，治疗组101例，进行CVVH采用AEF‐13血液滤过器的疗法。对照组102例进行CVVH采用AEF‐10血液滤过器的疗法，超声心动图分别检测2组治疗前、治疗后1d、治疗后4周左心室后壁心包积液量，进行比较。结果①治疗组治疗后1d与治疗后4周有效率分别为97.0％、95．0％，明显高于对照组的93.1％、90.2％，差异有统计学意义（χ2＝9.119，P＜0.05；χ2＝8.983，P＜0.05）；②治疗组治疗后1d与治疗后4周心包积液超声心动图左心室后壁心包积液量分别为（8±3）mm、（10±3）mm，低于对照组的（9±5）mm、（11±4）mm，差异有统计学意义（t＝2.054，P＜0.05；t＝3.531，P＜0.05）。CVVH治疗后1d、治疗后4周心包积液量较治疗前均有显著改善（P＜0.05），2种不同血液滤过器血液净化方法治疗后1d、治疗后4周相比，差异均有统计学意义。结论CVVH疗法选择AEF‐13血液滤过器，对缓解尿毒症并发心包积液患者的临床症状，减少心包积液量较采用AEF‐10血液滤过器更为有效。
目的：探討連續性血液濾過（CVVH）不同血液濾過器治療尿毒癥患者心包積液的療效對比。方法選取2009年1月至2014年7月接受CVVH治療的尿毒癥伴心包積液患者203例，治療組101例，進行CVVH採用AEF‐13血液濾過器的療法。對照組102例進行CVVH採用AEF‐10血液濾過器的療法，超聲心動圖分彆檢測2組治療前、治療後1d、治療後4週左心室後壁心包積液量，進行比較。結果①治療組治療後1d與治療後4週有效率分彆為97.0％、95．0％，明顯高于對照組的93.1％、90.2％，差異有統計學意義（χ2＝9.119，P＜0.05；χ2＝8.983，P＜0.05）；②治療組治療後1d與治療後4週心包積液超聲心動圖左心室後壁心包積液量分彆為（8±3）mm、（10±3）mm，低于對照組的（9±5）mm、（11±4）mm，差異有統計學意義（t＝2.054，P＜0.05；t＝3.531，P＜0.05）。CVVH治療後1d、治療後4週心包積液量較治療前均有顯著改善（P＜0.05），2種不同血液濾過器血液淨化方法治療後1d、治療後4週相比，差異均有統計學意義。結論CVVH療法選擇AEF‐13血液濾過器，對緩解尿毒癥併髮心包積液患者的臨床癥狀，減少心包積液量較採用AEF‐10血液濾過器更為有效。
목적：탐토련속성혈액려과（CVVH）불동혈액려과기치료뇨독증환자심포적액적료효대비。방법선취2009년1월지2014년7월접수CVVH치료적뇨독증반심포적액환자203례，치료조101례，진행CVVH채용AEF‐13혈액려과기적요법。대조조102례진행CVVH채용AEF‐10혈액려과기적요법，초성심동도분별검측2조치료전、치료후1d、치료후4주좌심실후벽심포적액량，진행비교。결과①치료조치료후1d여치료후4주유효솔분별위97.0％、95．0％，명현고우대조조적93.1％、90.2％，차이유통계학의의（χ2＝9.119，P＜0.05；χ2＝8.983，P＜0.05）；②치료조치료후1d여치료후4주심포적액초성심동도좌심실후벽심포적액량분별위（8±3）mm、（10±3）mm，저우대조조적（9±5）mm、（11±4）mm，차이유통계학의의（t＝2.054，P＜0.05；t＝3.531，P＜0.05）。CVVH치료후1d、치료후4주심포적액량교치료전균유현저개선（P＜0.05），2충불동혈액려과기혈액정화방법치료후1d、치료후4주상비，차이균유통계학의의。결론CVVH요법선택AEF‐13혈액려과기，대완해뇨독증병발심포적액환자적림상증상，감소심포적액량교채용AEF‐10혈액려과기경위유효。
Objective To contrast the curative effect of different blood filter in the aspect of treating peri‐cardial effusion in uremia patients who uses the method of continuous hemofiltration.Methods Two hundred and three uremia patients with pericardial effusion were selected at random ,who once accepted continuous veno‐venous hemofiltration (CVVH) from Janurary 2009 to July 2014 .One hundred and one patients in the treatment group used AEF‐13 blood filter to do CVVH ,while 102 patients in control group used AEF‐10 to do it .The procedure is as follows :echocardiography is given to all of the 203 patients in both groups one day before doing CVVH ,one day after doing CVVH and four weeks after doing CVVH.The aim is to recheck and contrast the pericardial effu‐sion in left ventricular wall.Results ① The effective rate of the treatment after one day and that of after four weeks are 97 .0% and 95 .0% .Obviously ,they are higher than 93 .1% and 90 .2% ,which are the effective rate of control group .Differences are statistically significant (χ2 = 9 .119 ,P< 0 .05 ;χ2 = 8 .983 ,P<0 .05) .② On the day after treatment ,and four weeks after treatment ,the measurement of pericardial effusion in left ventricular wall are (8 ± 3)mm and(10 ± 3)mm ,lower than the results of control group which are (9 ± 5)mm and (11 ± 4) mm .Differences are statistically significant ( t= 2 .054 ,P< 0 .05 ;t= 3 .531 ,P<0 .05) .The measurement of peri‐cardial effusion is remarkably improved( P<0 .05) .For these two blood filters ,the contrastive data of one day af‐ter treatment and four weeks after treatment are statistically significant .Conclusion In contrast ,AEF‐13 is effec‐tive than AEF‐10 in the aspect of relieving the clinical symptoms of uremia patients with pericardial effusion and of reducing the effusion measurement.
