Efficacy Contrast Of Day-Time CBP And 24-Hour CBP Technology For The Treatment Of Critically Ill Patients

Objective:Observe day-time CBP and 24-hour CBP technology for the treatment of critically ill patients and contrast their efficacy.Method:90 cases of critically ill patients were analyzed retrospectively who stayed in our intensive care unit from Jul.2007 to Mar.2010.30 patients treated with routine treatment and day time CBP were considered as treatment group A.30 patients treated with routine treatment and 24-hour CBP were considered as treatment group B.30 patients only treated with routine treatment but CBP were considered as the control group.Patients were observed before treatment (0h) and after treatment 24h,48h,72h body temperature, respiration, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, potassium, sodium, white blood cell and arterial blood oxygenation index, PH value and other indicators of changes in value.APACHE(acute physiology and chronic health evaluation)â…¡score to the overall condition of the patients to evaluate changes.Patients wre observed changes in the above mentioned indicators and the three 72h survival rates of patients,the end mortality,and the clinical data mentioned above were statistically analyzed.Results:APACHE II score:at Oh three group has no statistical difference (P >0.05).Treatment group A at 48 h,72h after CBP,APACHEâ…¡score was significantly lower compared with Oh (P<0.05). Treatment group B at24,48 h,72h after CBP,APACHEâ…¡score is significantly lower compared with Oh (P<0.05), and at 72h is lower significantly compared with the control group (P<0.05). Body temperature,PH,oxygenation index,creatinine,blood urea nitogen and other indicators in treatment group A and B after CBP have a significant improvement than those of the control group (P<0.05),but the difference between group A and group B is not significant while considering these indicators (P> 0.05).72h survival rate of treatment group A is 78.57%,that of treatment group B is 96.49% and 51.72% of control group.difference among them is statistically significant (P<0.05).treatment group B significantly higher than treatment group A and treatment group A is significantly higher than control group.The end of observation:5 cases(16.67%) of treatment group A who still had the indications of CBP treatmeng gave up the treatment of hospital due to economic and other reasons.15cases (50%)improved to an ordinary ward or local hospital to continue treatment.10 (33.33%)cases died.3 cases(10%) of treatment group B gave up the treatment of hospital.16cases (53.33%)improved to an ordinary ward or local hospital to continue treatment.11 (36.67%)cases died.4 cases(13.33%) of control group gave up the treatment of hospital.8 cases (26.67%)improved to an ordinary ward or local hospital to continue treatment.18 (60%)cases died.Comparison of the mortality of three sets:40% of treatment group A,40.74% of treatment group B,69.23% of control group.the mortality of cntrol group is significantly higher than that of treatment group A and group B (P<0.05),the difference between treatment group A and B is not significant (P>0.05)Conclusion:CBP with hemodynamic stability and a high rate of solute removal can improve the serological indicators and maintain a stable internal.Day time CBP and 24h CBP can significantly increase the 72h survival rate of critically ill patients and reduce the endpoi it mortality.Compare with day time CBP,24h CBP can significantly increase the 72h survival rate,but the endpoint mortality between the two is not significant different.