品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的应用效果分析

目的探讨品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的应用效果。方法选取我院2016年8月至2018年12月收治的输液外渗患儿100例,随机分为两组各50例。对照组给予50%硫酸镁湿敷治疗与常规护理,干预组采用喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷,进行品管圈活动。对比两组的临床疗效、损伤痊愈时间和完全消肿时间。结果干预组的总有效率为90.00%,高于对照组的74.00%(P <0.05)。干预组的损伤痊愈时间和完全消肿时间短于对照组(P <0.05)。结论品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的效果较好,可缩短临床症状消失时间,加快康复进程。     

Comparison between a new platelet count drop method PL-11, light transmission aggregometry,VerifyNow aspirin system and thromboelastography for monitoring short-term aspirin effects in healthy individuals

Platelet function has been described by many laboratory assays, and PL-11 is a new point-of-care platelet function analyzer based on platelet count drop method, which counts platelet before and after the addition of agonists in the citrated whole blood samples. The present study sought to compare PL-11 with other three major more established assays, light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow? aspirin system and thromboelastography (TEG), for monitoring the short-term aspirin responses in healthy individuals. Ten healthy young men took 100?mg/d aspirin for 3-day treatment. Platelet function was measured via PL-11, LTA, VerifyNow and TEG, respectively. The blood samples were collected at baseline, 2 hour, 1 day during the aspirin treatment and 1 day, 5?±?1 days, 8?±?1 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Moreover, 90 additional healthy subjects were recruited to establish a reference range for PL-11. Platelet function of healthy subjects decreased significantly 2 hours after 100?mg/d aspirin intake and began to recover during 4–6 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Correlations between methods were PL-11 vs. LTA (r?=?0.614, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. VerifyNow (r?=?0.829, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. TEG (r?=?0.697, p?<?0.001). There was no significant bias between PL-11 and LTA at baseline (bias?=?1.94%, p?=?0.804) using Bland-Altman analysis, while the data of PL-11 were significantly higher than LTA (bias?=?24.02%, p?<?0.001) during the aspirin therapy. The reference range for PL-11 in healthy young individuals was from 66.8 to 90.5% (95%CI). When aspirin low-responsiveness was defined as LTA?>?20%, the cut-off values for each method were, respectively: PL-11?>?50%, VerifyNow?>?533 ARU, TEG?>?60.2%. The results of different platelet function assays were uninterchangeable for monitoring aspirin response and correlations among them were also varied. Correlations among PL-11 and other three major assays suggested the ability of PL-11 to assess the treatment effects of aspirin. But a large cohort study is needed to confirm the cut-off value of aspirin response detected by PL-11.