论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较树脂和活性炭灌流器辅助治疗急性药物中毒的临床效果。方法:将广东省佛山市第一人民医院急诊科2014年1月-2015年12月收治的需行床边血流灌流的急性药物中毒患者60例随机分成树脂组(n=30)和活性炭组(n=30),在常规治疗的基础上,树脂组采用MG350大孔树脂成分灌注器,活性炭组采用Adsorba300C活性炭成分灌注器,两组均作床边血流灌流2.5小时,共3次。比较两组治愈率、清醒时间、并发症的发生率和住院时间。结果:两组患者均治愈,治愈率为100%;树脂组的清醒时间和并发症发生情况虽均较活性炭组缩短,但均无明显差异,P>均0.05。结论:在常规治疗的基础上,联合树脂或活性炭成分的灌流器治疗急表1两组患者清醒时间、住院时间、并发症和治愈情况比较组别性药物中毒的救治成功率高,且使用树脂成分灌注器的效果较活性炭成分的灌流器更好。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of resin and activated carbon cartridge in adjuvant treatment of acute drug poisoning. Methods: Sixty patients with acute drug poisoning requiring bedside perfusion admitted to the emergency department of First People ’s Hospital of Foshan City, Guangdong Province from January 2014 to December 2015 were randomly divided into two groups: resin group (n = 30) and activated carbon group (n = 30). On the basis of conventional treatment, MG350 macroporous resin infusion device was used in the resin group and Adsorba300C activated carbon infusion device was used in the activated carbon infusion group. The two groups were infiltrated by bedside for 2.5 hours for 3 times. The cure rate, awake time, complication rate and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results: The two groups of patients were cured, the cure rate was 100%. Although the awake time and complications of the resin group were shorter than that of the activated carbon group, there was no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion: On the basis of routine treatment, combined with resin or activated carbon composition of the perfusion device treatment of emergency table 1 two groups of patients awake time, hospital stay, complications and cure compared to group drug poisoning treatment success rate, and the use of resin Component syringe perfusion effect than the active carbon component of the better.