论文部分内容阅读
目的比较无肝素钠注射液(肝素)循环预冲法与肝素循环预冲法对复用透析器凝血与透析器复用次数的影响。方法采用自身前后对照研究设计,于2013年5月-6月对接受维持性血液透析治疗的39例患者采用肝素循环预冲法与无肝素循环预冲法各2周,比较两种方法对复用透析器凝血程度及透析器复用次数的影响。结果 39例患者中,在无肝素循环预冲阶段,患者失访3例(7.7%),完成研究36例(92.3%);完成肝素循环预冲法66次,无肝素循环预冲法63次。36例患者经无肝素循环预冲法与肝素循环预冲法后,复用透析器的凝血程度与复用次数的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种循环预冲法对复用透析器凝血与复用次数的影响差异较小,但无肝素循环预冲较为安全简便,患者出血风险较小,值得临床进一步推广验证。
Objective To compare the effect of non-heparin injection (heparin) preconditioning and heparin circulation pre-pulsing on the multiplex dialyzer coagulation and dialyzer reuse times. Methods A total of 39 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis were enrolled in this study. The patients received hemodialysis and heparin-free preconditioning for two weeks respectively from May 2013 to June 2013, Effect of dialyzer coagulation and number of dialyzer reuses. Results Among the 39 patients, 3 patients (7.7%) were lost to follow-up and 36 patients (92.3%) completed the priming without heparin cycle; 66 patients completed heparin cycle priming and 63 patients without heparin cycle priming . Thirty-six patients had no statistical difference in the degree of coagulation and the number of times of re-use after dialyzing without heparin and heparin cycle pre-blanking method (P> 0.05). Conclusions The two methods of preconditioning have no significant difference on the number of coagulation and reusing of dialyzer. However, no preconditioning without heparin cycle is safe and easy, and the risk of bleeding in patients is small, so it is worthy of further clinical validation.