| 卫肖肖
1
尹彩星
1
马玉英
2△.血液透析对急性百草枯中毒的临床疗效分析[J].现代生物医学进展英文版,2014,14(6):1109-1112. |
| 血液透析对急性百草枯中毒的临床疗效分析 |
| Analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Hemodilalysis in the Treatment ofParaquat Poisoning |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 血液透析 百草枯 中毒 临床疗效 |
| 英文关键词: Hemodialysis Paraquat Poisoning Therapeutic effect |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Hits: 790 |
| Download times: 997 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘要 目的： 探讨血液透析 （hemodilalysis,HD ） 治疗急性百草枯中毒的临床疗效，为临床应用 HD 治疗急性百草枯中毒提供依据。
方法： 选择我院 2003 年 3 月 ~2012 年 7 月收治的百草枯中毒患者 40 例， 根据患者使用是否行透析治疗分为透析组(A 组 17 例)
和非透析组(B 组 23 例)， 比较分析两组患者治疗后的肝功能、 肾功能、 肺功能及心肌酶学指标的变化， 治疗效果及存活情况。结
果： 两组患者入院后前 3 天 ALT、 AST、 BUN、 CR、 CK、 CK-MB 水平均呈上升趋势， 且非透析组患者以上指标的水平高于透析组患
者， 但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)， 入院后第 7 天， 两组以上指标的比较亦无统计学差异(P>0.05)； 两组患者之间入院时和入院后
72 小时内最低的 SPO
2 %、 血气分析中 PaO2 和 PaCO2 水平比较无统计学意义(P>0.05)； 透析组和非透析组患者的病死率分别为
70.6%和 69.6%， 差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论： 百草枯溶液中毒的患者预后差、 病死率高， 血液透析治疗并不能显著提高急性
百草枯中毒患者的生存率。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| ABSTRACT Objective:To investigate the clinical effects of hemodialysis (HD) on the treatment of paraquat poisoning.Methods: 40
patients with paraquat poisoning, who were admitted in our hospital from to March 2003 to July 2012 were divided into hemodialysis
group (Group A) and non-hemodialysis group (Group B). We had comparative analysis analysis of the two groups of patients' objective
indicators with liver function, kidney function, and cardiac enzymes, observe patient outcomes and survival rate.Results: The
posttreatment Indexes such as ALT, AST, BUN, CR, CK-MB in groupB are higher than group A in the first three days, the level was still
rising for two groups, and no significant different(P＞ 0.05 for all) was seen.The 7th day is also so(P＞ 0.05 for all). There is no statistical
difference between two groups with the SPO
2 %, PaO2
, PaCO
2 at the 1st and the minimum value during 72 hours in hospital. The death
rate in group A is 70.6% and group B is 69.6%, with no significance (P＞ 0.05).Conclusion: For the patients with poor prognosis and
high mortality who oral 20% paraquat solution, hemodialysis treatment of pataquat poisoning patients can not appear to obviously
improve the survival rate. |
|
View Full Text
View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
