论文部分内容阅读
目的在颅内压和脑灌注压监护时,对2种不同的监测方法进行统计学一致性研究,确定颅内压和脑灌注压监护时不同监测方法的有效性和客观性。方法 50位成年外伤性脑损伤患者入选本研究,进行颅内压和脑灌注压监护。检验确定2种方法是否存在统计学一致性。然后,通过颅内压增高率和脑灌注降低率来量化分析脑血流动力学变化。结果本研究证实了2种数据记录方法存在统计学一致性:颅内压为r~2=0.79,P<0.0001,脑灌注压为r~2=0.97,P<0.001。2种数据记录方法的脑血流动力学研究显示:颅内高压率分别为14.8%和15.6%,脑低灌注率分别为6.01%和6.05%。结论颅内压和脑灌注压监护时各种监测方法均是客观和有效的。参数颅内高压率和脑低灌注率在量化分析脑血流动力学变化方面是非常有价值的,能进一步了解成年脑外伤患者颅内压和脑灌注压的详细变化。
Objective To study the consistency of two different monitoring methods in the monitoring of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure, and to determine the validity and objectivity of different monitoring methods in the monitoring of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure. Methods Fifty adult traumatic brain injury patients were enrolled in this study. Intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure were monitored. The test determines if there is statistical agreement between the two methods. Then, the changes of cerebral hemodynamics were quantitatively analyzed by the increase rate of intracranial pressure and the decrease rate of cerebral perfusion. Results This study confirmed the statistical consistency of the two data recording methods: intracranial pressure was r = 2 = 0.79, P <0.0001, cerebral perfusion pressure was r = 2 = 0.97, P <0.001. Cerebral hemodynamics studies showed that intracranial hypertension rates were 14.8% and 15.6%, respectively, and hypoperfusion brain rates were 6.01% and 6.05%, respectively. Conclusion The monitoring methods of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure monitoring are both objective and effective. Parameters of intracranial hypertension and cerebral hypoperfusion rate in the quantitative analysis of cerebral hemodynamic changes is very valuable to further understand the details of changes in intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury.