喷妥沙昏迷治疗与定向体温管理治疗外伤性脑损伤并发症的比较

K. Lee, J. Kim, D. Park
{"title":"喷妥沙昏迷治疗与定向体温管理治疗外伤性脑损伤并发症的比较","authors":"K. Lee, J. Kim, D. Park","doi":"10.32587/jnic.2022.00549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundPentothal coma therapy (PCT) and targeted temperature management (TTM) are considered the most aggressive medical care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, there is very little comparison between these two options. We compared the survival rates and complications between the two treatments.MethodsNineteen patients who received treatment for PCT or TTM after severe TBI between March 2018 and April 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Medical records were reviewed, including general information, neurologic status, treatment courses, survival rate, and complications. Patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment modalities (PCT vs. TTM), and comparison analyses were conducted.ResultsThe survival rate in the TTM group was 33.3% (3/9), which was higher than that in the PCT group (1/10, 10%). However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.213). In terms of complications, there were no statistically significant differences in hemodynamic instability, cardiovascular disability, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, hyperkalemia, hypokalemia, coagulopathy, or hyperglycemia. Commonly observed complications included hypokalemia in the TTM group (100% in the TTM group vs 70% in the PCT group; p = 0.073) and hyperkalemia in the PCT group (50% in the PCT group vs 11.1% in the TTM group; p = 0.069).ConclusionSevere TBI patients treated with TTM has non-significantly lower mortality than them with PCT (66.7% vs. 90%); however, complications of hypokalemia can be frequently observed (100%). Further study was necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTM.","PeriodicalId":356321,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Complications of Pentothal Coma Therapy and Targeted Temperature Management in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients\",\"authors\":\"K. Lee, J. Kim, D. Park\",\"doi\":\"10.32587/jnic.2022.00549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundPentothal coma therapy (PCT) and targeted temperature management (TTM) are considered the most aggressive medical care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, there is very little comparison between these two options. We compared the survival rates and complications between the two treatments.MethodsNineteen patients who received treatment for PCT or TTM after severe TBI between March 2018 and April 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Medical records were reviewed, including general information, neurologic status, treatment courses, survival rate, and complications. Patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment modalities (PCT vs. TTM), and comparison analyses were conducted.ResultsThe survival rate in the TTM group was 33.3% (3/9), which was higher than that in the PCT group (1/10, 10%). However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.213). In terms of complications, there were no statistically significant differences in hemodynamic instability, cardiovascular disability, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, hyperkalemia, hypokalemia, coagulopathy, or hyperglycemia. Commonly observed complications included hypokalemia in the TTM group (100% in the TTM group vs 70% in the PCT group; p = 0.073) and hyperkalemia in the PCT group (50% in the PCT group vs 11.1% in the TTM group; p = 0.069).ConclusionSevere TBI patients treated with TTM has non-significantly lower mortality than them with PCT (66.7% vs. 90%); however, complications of hypokalemia can be frequently observed (100%). Further study was necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTM.\",\"PeriodicalId\":356321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neurointensive Care\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neurointensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2022.00549\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2022.00549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景喷妥昏迷治疗(PCT)和靶向温度管理(TTM)被认为是对严重创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者最积极的医疗护理。然而,这两种选择之间几乎没有可比性。我们比较了两种治疗方法的生存率和并发症。方法回顾性纳入2018年3月至2022年4月期间接受PCT或TTM治疗的19例重度TBI患者。回顾医疗记录,包括一般信息、神经系统状况、疗程、存活率和并发症。根据治疗方式将患者分为两组(PCT vs. TTM),进行比较分析。结果TTM组患者生存率为33.3%(3/9),高于PCT组(1/ 10,10 %)。然而,这种差异不显著(p = 0.213)。在并发症方面,两组在血流动力学不稳定、心血管功能障碍、肝功能障碍、肾功能障碍、肺炎、尿路感染、高钾血症、低钾血症、凝血功能障碍、高血糖等方面差异无统计学意义。常见的并发症包括TTM组低钾血症(TTM组为100%,PCT组为70%;p = 0.073)和高钾血症(PCT组50% vs TTM组11.1%;P = 0.069)。结论TTM治疗重型TBI患者的死亡率低于PCT治疗(66.7% vs. 90%);然而,低钾血症的并发症可以经常观察到(100%)。还需要进一步的研究来评价中药的疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison Between Complications of Pentothal Coma Therapy and Targeted Temperature Management in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients
BackgroundPentothal coma therapy (PCT) and targeted temperature management (TTM) are considered the most aggressive medical care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, there is very little comparison between these two options. We compared the survival rates and complications between the two treatments.MethodsNineteen patients who received treatment for PCT or TTM after severe TBI between March 2018 and April 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Medical records were reviewed, including general information, neurologic status, treatment courses, survival rate, and complications. Patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment modalities (PCT vs. TTM), and comparison analyses were conducted.ResultsThe survival rate in the TTM group was 33.3% (3/9), which was higher than that in the PCT group (1/10, 10%). However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.213). In terms of complications, there were no statistically significant differences in hemodynamic instability, cardiovascular disability, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, hyperkalemia, hypokalemia, coagulopathy, or hyperglycemia. Commonly observed complications included hypokalemia in the TTM group (100% in the TTM group vs 70% in the PCT group; p = 0.073) and hyperkalemia in the PCT group (50% in the PCT group vs 11.1% in the TTM group; p = 0.069).ConclusionSevere TBI patients treated with TTM has non-significantly lower mortality than them with PCT (66.7% vs. 90%); however, complications of hypokalemia can be frequently observed (100%). Further study was necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTM.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Decompressive Laparotomy as a Treatment Option for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review Clinical Application and Significance of Indirect Calorimetry in Neurocritical Care Cooperative Sedation in Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Tool for Neurocritical Care Management Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke Associated with Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Analysis of Nitrogen Balance Test in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1