湖南师范大学学报(医学版)
湖南師範大學學報(醫學版)
호남사범대학학보(의학판)
JOURNAL OF HUNAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY(MEDICAL SCIENCE)
2015年
2期
111-112
,共2页
刘一韡%孙海伟%邹勤华%于婷婷%刘翠玲
劉一韡%孫海偉%鄒勤華%于婷婷%劉翠玲
류일위%손해위%추근화%우정정%류취령
液体复苏%抗感染%感染性休克
液體複囌%抗感染%感染性休剋
액체복소%항감염%감염성휴극
fluid resuscitation%anti infection%septic shock
目的:探讨液体复苏联合抗感染的综合疗法治疗感染性休克的临床疗效。方法:选取280例感染性休克患者为研究对象,根据其意愿分成液体复苏组(A 组,n=140)和对照组(B 组,n=140)两组,观察并记录两组患者用药后治疗目标达到时间、治疗第1h 输液量、ICU 总住院时间等指标差异,对比其治疗后死亡及肺水肿发生情况。结果:① A 组患者在治疗达标时间及 ICU 总治疗时间对比上均明显短于 B 组,对比差异明显;B 组治疗第一小时输液量明显低于 A 组;② A 组死亡率为15.0%,明显低于 B 组的42.8%,对比差异具有统计学意义;两组在治疗肺水肿发生率对比上无明显差异。结论:对感染性休克患者予以液体复苏联合抗感染治疗方案,临床效果确切,预后质量良好,值得临床推广。
目的:探討液體複囌聯閤抗感染的綜閤療法治療感染性休剋的臨床療效。方法:選取280例感染性休剋患者為研究對象,根據其意願分成液體複囌組(A 組,n=140)和對照組(B 組,n=140)兩組,觀察併記錄兩組患者用藥後治療目標達到時間、治療第1h 輸液量、ICU 總住院時間等指標差異,對比其治療後死亡及肺水腫髮生情況。結果:① A 組患者在治療達標時間及 ICU 總治療時間對比上均明顯短于 B 組,對比差異明顯;B 組治療第一小時輸液量明顯低于 A 組;② A 組死亡率為15.0%,明顯低于 B 組的42.8%,對比差異具有統計學意義;兩組在治療肺水腫髮生率對比上無明顯差異。結論:對感染性休剋患者予以液體複囌聯閤抗感染治療方案,臨床效果確切,預後質量良好,值得臨床推廣。
목적:탐토액체복소연합항감염적종합요법치료감염성휴극적림상료효。방법:선취280례감염성휴극환자위연구대상,근거기의원분성액체복소조(A 조,n=140)화대조조(B 조,n=140)량조,관찰병기록량조환자용약후치료목표체도시간、치료제1h 수액량、ICU 총주원시간등지표차이,대비기치료후사망급폐수종발생정황。결과:① A 조환자재치료체표시간급 ICU 총치료시간대비상균명현단우 B 조,대비차이명현;B 조치료제일소시수액량명현저우 A 조;② A 조사망솔위15.0%,명현저우 B 조적42.8%,대비차이구유통계학의의;량조재치료폐수종발생솔대비상무명현차이。결론:대감염성휴극환자여이액체복소연합항감염치료방안,림상효과학절,예후질량량호,치득림상추엄。
Objective To investigate the liquid resuscitation joint fight infection the clinical curative effect of comprehen-sive therapy in the treatment of septic shock. Methods 280 cases of patients with septic shock as the research object, according to its will into fluid resuscitation group (group A, n=140) and control group (group B, n=140) of two groups were observed and recorded two groups. Treatment time, achieve the goal of treatment of the first 1H infusion volume, ICU total length of stay and other indicators of differences. The occurrence of death after the comparison of the treatment and the pulmonary edema. Results the patients in the A group contrast therapy time and ICU of total treatment time were significantly shorter in the B group, con-trast differences are significant; group B in the treatment of the first hour of infusion volume was significantly lower than that in A group; the mortality rate in the A group was 15%, significantly lower than 42.8% in the B group, with significant differences in contrast; the two group in the treatment of protecting pulmonary edema compared the incidence of no significant difference. Conclusions fluid resuscitation to the patients with septic shock combined with anti infection treatment scheme, the exact clinical effects and prognosis of good quality, is worth the clinical promotion.