奥扎格雷联合低分子肝素钙治疗脑血栓的临床研究

目的：对应用低分子肝素钙与奥扎格雷联合对患有脑血栓疾病的患者实施治疗的临床效果进行研究。方法整群选择在该院2012年12月—2014年12月就诊的患有脑血栓疾病的患者86例，随机分为对照组和治疗组，每组43例。采用奥扎格雷对对照组患者实施治疗；采用低分子肝素钙与奥扎格雷联合对治疗组患者实施治疗。对比神经功能缺损评分在药物治疗前后的变化幅度、脑神经功能恢复正常时间和脑血栓药物治疗计划实施总时间、脑血栓疾病药物治疗效果、用药期间的不良反应人数。结果治疗组患者神经功能缺损评分在药物治疗前后的变化幅度明显大于对照组；脑神经功能恢复正常时间（9.66±2.41）d和脑血栓药物治疗计划实施总时间（13.28±2.14）d明显短于对照组（13.62±3.47）、（17.39±3.20）d；脑血栓疾病药物治疗效果（总有效率90.6%）明显优于对照组（总有效率69.8%）；用药期间的不良反应人数（1例）明显少于对照组（8例）。结论应用低分子肝素钙与奥扎格雷联合对患有脑血栓疾病的患者实施治疗的临床效果非常明显。     

Use of a dual lumen port for automated red cell exchange in adults with sickle cell disease

Red cell exchange (RCE) is a common procedure in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Implantable dual lumen Vortex (DLV) ports can be used for RCE in patients with poor peripheral venous access. We performed a retrospective cohort study of RCE procedures performed in adults with SCD. The main objective of the study was to compare the inlet speed, duration of procedures and rate of complications performed through DLV ports to those performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters. Twenty‐nine adults with SCD underwent a total of 318 RCE procedures. Twenty adults had DLV ports placed and 218 procedures were performed using DLV ports. Mean length of follow‐up after DLV port placement was 397 ± 263 days. Six DLV ports were removed due to infection and 1 for malfunction after a mean of 171 ± 120 days. Compared to temporary central venous and peripheral catheters, DLV port procedures had a greater rate of procedural complications, a longer duration, and a lower inlet speed (all P < 0.01). When accounting for the maximum allowable inlet speed to avoid citrate toxicity, 40% of DLV port procedures were greater than 10% below maximum speed, compared to 7 and 14% of procedures performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, DLV ports can be used for RCE in adults with SCD, albeit with more procedural complications and longer duration. The smaller internal diameter and longer catheter of DLV ports compared to temporary central venous catheters likely accounts for the differences noted. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:353–358, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.