论文部分内容阅读
目的:分析对比亚休克疗法与传统补液法在创伤休克患者院前急救中的临床效果。方法:随机选取2013年6月~2015年3月期间收治的187例创伤休克患者,分为实验组与对照组,实验组采用亚休克疗法,对照组采用传统补液法,观察对比72 h病死率与严重并发症发生率。结果:实验组病死率与严重并发症发生率分别为32.61%、16.30%,对照组病死率与严重并发症发生率分别为41.05%、23.16%,两组间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:亚休克疗法比传统补液法在创伤休克患者院前急救中具有更好的临床效果,应首选亚休克疗法。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical effect of contrasts and traditional rehydration therapy in prehospital emergency treatment of patients with traumatic shock. Methods: A total of 187 patients with traumatic shock were selected from June 2013 to March 2015. The patients were divided into experimental group and control group. Subacute shock was used in the experimental group, while the control group was treated with conventional rehydration method. The mortality of 72 h And the incidence of serious complications. Results: The case fatality rate and serious complication rate in the experimental group were 32.61% and 16.30%, respectively. The mortality and serious complications in the control group were 41.05% and 23.16%, respectively, with significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05 ). Conclusion: Compared with traditional rehydration therapy, sub-shock therapy has better clinical effect in pre-hospital emergency care of patients with traumatic shock. Sub-shock therapy should be preferred.