多巴胺与去甲肾上腺素在休克治疗中的应用研究被引量：6

Application of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in Shock Therapy

下载PDF

导出

摘要目的:探讨多巴胺与去甲肾上腺素在休克治疗中的应用;方法:选择休克患者共200例,按照治疗方法,分为多巴胺组(DA组)(n=65),去甲肾上腺素组(NE组)(n=65),多巴胺联合去甲肾上腺素组(DA+NE组)(n=70),比较治疗效果与并发症的发生率,并比较各组28d的死亡率。结果:治疗后血肌酐水平在三组中有显著差异,DA组血肌酐水平显著高于NE组和DA+NE组,其他各项无统计学差异。DA组治疗期间心律失常的发生率为30.76%,显著高于NE组的13.85%(χ2=5.370,P=0.021),DA+NE组为20.0%。DA组28d死亡率为24.62%,NE组死亡率为21.54%,DA+NE组为18.57%,三者无统计学差异(χ2=0.725,P=0.394)。结论:去甲肾上腺素在休克的治疗中,在稳定心率以及降低对肾功能损伤等方面较多巴胺具有更明显的优势,是目前治疗休克最佳药物。 Objective： To investigate dopamine and norepinephrine in shock therapy. Method： A total of 200 shock patients were collected. According to the method of treatment,they were divided into dopamine（ DA） group（ n = 65）,norepinephrine（ NE） group（ n = 65）,dopamine and norepinephrine（ DA ＋ NE）group（ n = 70）. Treatment efficacy,incidence of complications and 28 days mortality were compared between groups. Result： After treatment,serum creatinine levels in three groups were significantly different.Serum creatinine levels in DA group were significantly higher than the NE group and DA ＋ NE group. Other indicators had no statistical difference. Arrhythmia was 30. 76% in the DA group,which was significantly higher than 13.85% in the NE group（ χ^2= 5.370,P = 0.021）,and DA ＋ NE group was 20.0%. 28 days mortality rate in DA group was 24. 62%,but in NE group,the mortality rate was 21. 54%,and DA ＋ NE group was 18.57%. There was no significant difference the three（ χ^2= 0.725; P = 0.394）. Conclusion： In the treatment of shock,norepinephrine has more obvious advantages in terms of stabilizing the heart rate and reducing renal damage compared with dopamine,which is the best drug to treat shock.

作者杨璇李长江冯磊延荣强李玉

机构地区山东省青岛市市立医院山东省青岛市中心医院山东省淄博市政府机关医院心内科

出处《河北医学》 CAS 2015年第8期1419-1422,共4页 Hebei Medicine

基金山东省青岛市卫生局课题支持项目 (编号:2012-WSZD024)

关键词多巴胺去甲肾上腺素休克 Dopamine Norepinephrine Shock

分类号 R459.7 [医药卫生—急诊医学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献14

1Daniel De Backer, Patrick Biston, Jacques Devriendt, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock[J].N Engl Med,2010, 362:779-789.
2Unverzagt S, Wachsmuth L, Hirsch K, et al. Inotropic a- gents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarc- tion complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome[ J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, 2 (1): CD009669.
3Annane D, Vignon P, Renault A, et al. Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of sep- tic shock: a randomised trial[J].Lancet, 2007, 370: 676- 684.
4Theil meier G, Booke M. Norepinephrine in septic patients- friend or foe[J] .Clin Anesth,2003,15 (2) : 154- 158.
5Jones AE. What vasopressors should be used to treat shock [ J] .Ann EmergMed, 2007,49 (3) :367 - 368.
6De Backer D, Creteur J, Silva E, et al . Effects of dopa- mine,norepinephrine and epinephrine on the splanchnic eir- culationin septic shock: which is best [ J ]. Crit Care Med, 2003,31(6) :1659- 1667.
7Ibsen M, Jorgenson VL, Pemer A. Norepinephrine in low to- moderate doses may not increase luminal concentrations of L2 lactate in the gut in patient swith septic shock [ J ]. Acta An- aesthesiol Scand, 2007.51(8) : 1079- 1084.
8Martin C , Viviand X, Leone M, et al.Effect of norepineph- fine on the outcome of septic shock [ J ]. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28 : 2758 - 2765.
9Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, et al. Surving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008 [ J]. Intensive Care Med, 2008, 36(1) :296-327.
10Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock [J].Ann Intern Med, 2008, 149(9) : 618-626.