4.1 Article

Analysis of the extracorporeal anticoagulation effect of modified citrate infusion during continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients

期刊

THERAPEUTIC APHERESIS AND DIALYSIS
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 222-231

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.13929

关键词

citrate anticoagulation; coagulation; continuous blood purification; continuous renal replacement therapy; extracorporeal circulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the anticoagulation effect of different local infusion methods of citrate in critically ill patients undergoing CRRT. The modified group had longer treatment time, lower transmembrane pressure, fewer citrate bag replacements, and more stable ionized calcium levels compared to the conventional group. The incidences of citrate accumulation and tubing coagulation were marginally lower in the modified group.
Introduction To analyze the anticoagulation effect of different local infusion methods of citrate underwent continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically ill patients. Methods The study adopted a single-centre retrospective design. Critically ill patients were divided into conventional group and modified group based on the infusion methods of citrate. Results The modified group had a longer mean treatment time (67.67 +/- 18.69 hours vs. 52.11 +/- 24.26 hours, p = 0.007), a lower transmembrane pressure (147.77 +/- 66.85 cm H2O vs. 200.63 +/- 118.66 cm H2O, p = 0.038), fewer citrate bag replacements (1.43 +/- 0.50 times vs. 10.60 +/- 3.19 times, p < 0.001), and more steady ionized calcium at the venous end (0.35 +/- 0.06 mmol/L vs. 0.40 +/- 0.05 mmol/L, p = 0.006) compared to the conventional group patients, with statistically significant differences. The incidences of citrate accumulation and tubing coagulation were marginally lower in the modified group. Conclusion The modified local citrate infusion method can prolong treatment time, while reducing both the nursing workload and the occurrence of citrate accumulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据