透析器重复使用的临床评价

目的探讨透析器重复使用对患者的治疗费用、潜在风险及复用成本的影响。方法将178例血液透析患者按透析器使用次数分为单次使用组(n=94)和复用组(n=84),观察两组患者治疗费用、不良事件及透析器复用所需成本。结果单次使用组接受低通量血液透析(LFHD)8750例次和高通量血液透析(HFHD)653例次,费用分别为(565.46±4.82)元/次和(809.12±10.39)元/次,透析器复用组接受LFHD3840例次和HFHD4660例次,费用为(475.74±3.61)元/次和(529.57±10.55)元/次,两组均未见热原反应、透析器破膜和灭菌剂残余反应发生,未发现新增感染肝炎病例。采用全自动和半自动复用方式进行透析器复用,其复用时间和灭菌剂成本分别为(9.03±0.67)、(23.97±1.18)分钟/支和(9.20±0.14)、(2.01±0.23)元/支。结论复用组HFHD治疗费用明显低于单次使用组LFHD;而按规范进行透析器复用可有效避免风险发生。

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF REUSED DIALYZER ON UREMIC PATIENTS DURING MAINTENANCE HEMODIALYSIS

Objective To explore the influence of reused dialyzer on the cost of the treatment and dialyzer reuse, at the same time,the potential risks in uremic patients during maintenance hemodialysis. Methods 178 uremic patients during maintenance hemodialysis were divided into two groups, Group A was single bemodialyzer （ n = 94 ）. Group B was hemodialyzer reuse（ n = 84）. Observe the cost of the treatment and dialyzer reuse and the potential risks between the two groups. Results Group A was received low flow bemodialysis（ n = 8750 ） and high flow hemodialysis （ n = 653 ） in ten month, the cost was （565.46±4.82 ） yuan a time and （ 809.12 ± 10.398 ） yuan a time respectively,while the group B was received low flow hemodialysis（n =3840） and high flow hemodialysis （n =4660） in ten month, the cost was （475.74 ± 3.61 ） yuan a time and （ 529. 57 ± 10. 55 ） yuan a time respectively. The cost of the treatment a time was significant different between the group A in the low flow hemodialysis and the group B in the high flow hemodialysis （p 〈 0. 01 ）. There were no pyrogen reaction and no broken dialyzer membrane incidence between the two groups. Conclusion The cost of the treatment in high flow bemodialysis with hemodialyzer reuse was less than the low flow hemodialysis ;at the same time, the standardized methods of dialyzer reuse can avoid the risk effectively in the hemodialysis patients.