Continuous Blood Purification in the Treatment of 1692 Critical Patients:A Retrospective Study

LI Leishi
2007-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To study the effects of continuous blood purification(CBP)in the treatment of 1 692 critical patients retrospectively and analyze the influencing factors of prognosis.Methodology:From Jan.1998 to Mar.2007,a total of 1 692 critical patients were treated with CBP in Jingling Hospital.The clinical data was collected:(1)General conditions:sex,age and original disease;(2)Clinical status prior to CBP:indications of CBP,APACHE Ⅱ score,SAPS Ⅱ score,number of organ dysfunction,complications,and the percentage of patients with vasoactive agents and mechanical ventilation;(3)Technique and method of CBP:modality,dosage,and vascular access of CBP,category of anticoagulant and membrane of hemofilter used in CBP;(4)Outcomes:the individual predicted risk of death was calculated form the SAPS Ⅱ scores of each patient.Results:(1)They were 1 088 males and 604 females,with an average of(46.9±19.6)years old(3.5-94,median 46).1 107 cases(65.43%)were admitted for medical reasons and 585(34.57%)for surgical reasons.(2)Three main indications of CBP were azotemia(60.46%),oliguria/anuria(39.07%)and refractory organ edema(especially lung)/nutritional support in patients with or at risk of pulmonary edema/ARDS(16.13%).(3)Continuous high-volume hemofiltration(HVHF)(66.55%)and continuous veno-venous hemofiltration(CVVH)(27.30%)were the main modality of CBP.A double-lumen catheter was used in most of patients through the internal jugular vein(64.72%)and femoral vein(30.91%).Polysulfone(78.72%)and polyacrylonitrile(15.77%)were the most common used membranes.57.21% of cases were anticoagulated with low molecular weight heparin(LMWH)combined with citrate acid,and 23.40% with LMWH only.(4)Except for 94 cases(5.56%)quitted for economic reasons,800 cases(47.28%)were cured and 458(27.07%)were improved.The total effective(cure and improve)rate was 74.6%,340 cased died,the mortality was 20.1%,which was lower than that the predicted in-hospital mortality of 29.5%.(5)The M/F ratio was much higher in the non-survivals,with an average of(55.8±21.1)years old vs(44.8±18.8)in the survivals(P0.01).The clinical condition of non-survivals were more severe before CBP:with higher APACHE Ⅱ scores and SAPS Ⅱ scores,more patients complicated with hypotension/shock,bleeding and infection/sepsis,more patients treated with vasoactive agents and mechanical ventilation,and more organ function were injured.Conclusion:The outcome of critical ill patients was significantly improved by CBP,the mortality was decreased.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?