论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨微泵输注比阿培南延长给药时间对重症感染的疗效是否优于传统短时间间断输注法。方法:选择入住ICU,经临床判断需要给予比阿培南治疗的重症感染患者,按最小不平衡指数法随机分组,分为30 min输注组(TI)和3 h输注组(EI),观察2组患者治疗的安全性、有效性及经济性。结果:共纳入128例患者,实际完成104例,延长输注组54例,临床有效率66.7%,传统输注组50例,临床有效率64.0%,2组患者的临床有效率、细菌清除率及不良反应均无统计学显著差异,但是延长输注组比阿培南用药天数[延长输注组:6.6±2.9,传统输注组:(8.1±3.9)d,P=0.035]及人均费用[延长输注组:(3 459±1 752)元,传统输注组:(4 931±2 836)元,P=0.002]显著低于传统输注组。结论:比阿培南延长输注对重症感染的治疗结果优于传统输注,可以作为传统输注法的一种更优替代。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether prolonged administration of biapenem by micro-pump infusion is superior to traditional short-term infusion in severe infections. Methods: Patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) admitted to ICU and clinically determined to be treated with biapenem were randomly divided into 30 min infusion group (TI) and 3 h infusion group (EI) according to the minimum unbalance index The safety, efficacy and economy of two groups were observed. Results: A total of 128 patients were enrolled, 104 cases were actually completed, 54 cases were prolonged infusion group, the clinical effective rate was 66.7%, the traditional infusion group was 50 cases, the clinical effective rate was 64.0%. The clinical effective rate, bacterial clearance rate There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of adverse reactions, but prolonged the days of drug use in the infusion group compared with those of the drug apean [prolonged infusion group: 6.6 ± 2.9, conventional infusion group: (8.1 ± 3.9) d, P = 0.035] [Prolonged infusion group: (3 459 ± 1 752) yuan, traditional infusion group: (4931 ± 2 836) yuan, P = 0.002] was significantly lower than the traditional infusion group. CONCLUSION: Extended-infusion biapenem is superior to traditional infusion in the treatment of severe infections and may be a better alternative to conventional infusion.