两种液体复苏方式在抢救多发伤创伤失血性休克中的临床研究

目的观察积极液体复苏（AFR）与限制性液体复苏（LFR）抢救多发伤创伤失血性休克的临床效果。方法研究62例多发伤创伤失血性休克的液体复苏方法,比较积极液体复苏组（n=31）与限制性液体复苏组（n=31）两种方法中治愈率、病死率及弥漫性血管内凝血（DIC）、急性呼吸窘迫综合征（ARDS）、多器官功能障碍综合征（MODS）发生率的结果。结果 AFR组输液量（2790±536）ml,治愈率71.0%,病死率29.0%。LFR组输液量（1802±313）ml,治愈率83.9%,病死率16.1%。两组间差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。DIC、ARDS、MODS的比较,两组差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论抢救多发伤创伤失血性休克中限制性液体复苏法优于积极液体复苏组。

To investigate the clinical significance of two fluid resuscitation on wounded hemorrhagic shock

Objective To investigate the clinical significance of aggressive fluid resuscitation（AFR） and limited fluid resuscitation（LFR） on wounded hemorrhagic shock.Methods 62 patients were analyzed and compare cure rate,mortality rate and disseminated intravascular congulation（DIC）、acute respiratory distress syndrome（ARDS）、multiple organ dysfunction syndrome（MODS） between AFR group（n=31）and LFR group（n=31）.Results Average transfusion quantities of AFR group were（2790±536）ml.Cure rate was 71.0%,mortality rate was 29.0%.Average transfusion quantities of LFR group were（1802±313）ml.Cure rate was 83.9,mortality rate was 16.1%,the comparison of two groups DIC、ARDS、MODS were much significant different（P0.05）,there was statistically significant different of cure rate and mortality rate between the two groups（P0.05）.Conclusion LFR is superior to AFR in operative intervention for patients with wounded hemorrhagic shock.