Suppr超能文献

两种间歇性气动压迫系统的比较:一项血流动力学研究

Comparison of two intermittent pneumatic compression systems. A hemodynamic study.

作者信息

Kakkos S K, Nicolaides A N, Griffin M, Geroulakos G

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.

出版信息

Int Angiol. 2005 Dec;24(4):330-5.

Abstract

AIM

Sequential leg compression has been previously shown to be superior to uniform compression. The aim of our study was to compare the hemodynamic effectiveness of the portable sequential compression device (SCD Express Compression System, Tyco Healthcare Group LP, Mansfield, MA, USA) with a rapid inflation device (VenaFlow, Aircast, Inc, Summit, NJ, USA). The former, by sensing venous refill time, commences compression when the calf veins are refilled.

METHODS

The two devices were tested in 12 normal volunteers in the semirecumbent position using duplex ultrasound. Baseline and augmented flow velocity and volume flow were measured at the level of the common femoral vein, above the saphenofemoral junction. Refilling time was determined from velocity recordings of the common femoral vein. Total and peak volume of blood expelled per hour during compression were calculated using flow data and the individual cycling rate.

RESULTS

Both devices increased venous flow velocity, up to 3.8 times the baseline (all P<0.001). Refill time of the rapid inflation device was shorter in comparison with the sequential compression device (15+/-2.2 vs 25+/-4 s; P<0.001), suggesting incomplete vein evacuation. The sequential compression device, by augmenting flow throughout a significantly longer compression period per cycle (10.9 s vs 6.3 s), expelled significantly more venous blood (121+/-68 vs 81+/-63 mL; P<0.001). Similarly, the total volume of blood expelled per hour with the sequential compression device was 100% higher than the rapid inflation device (9685+/-5426 vs 4853+/-3658 mL; P<0.001). Although peak velocity enhancement was higher with the rapid inflation device, flow augmentation (a product of average blood flow velocity) was comparable (669+/-367 vs 771+/-574 cm/s; P=0.223) with the sequential compression device, mainly because the rapid inflation device failed to maintain flow enhancement beyond the initial flow surge.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential compression showed hemodynamic superiority compared to a rapid inflation device. This was enhanced further by the sensing of refill time, which resulted in more compression cycles over time. The relative efficacy of the two devices in deep vein thrombosis prevention should be tested in future studies.

摘要

目的

先前已表明序贯腿部加压优于均匀加压。我们研究的目的是比较便携式序贯加压装置(SCD快速加压系统,美国泰科医疗集团,马萨诸塞州曼斯菲尔德)与快速充气装置(VenaFlow,美国Aircast公司,新泽西州萨米特)的血流动力学效果。前者通过感知静脉再充盈时间,在小腿静脉再充盈时开始加压。

方法

在12名半卧位的正常志愿者中使用双功超声对这两种装置进行测试。在股总静脉水平、大隐静脉-股静脉交界处上方测量基线及增强后的血流速度和容积流量。根据股总静脉的速度记录确定再充盈时间。利用血流数据和个体循环率计算加压期间每小时排出的血液总量和峰值。

结果

两种装置均使静脉血流速度增加,最高可达基线的3.8倍(所有P<0.001)。与序贯加压装置相比,快速充气装置的再充盈时间更短(15±2.2秒对25±4秒;P<0.001),提示静脉排空不完全。序贯加压装置通过在每个周期显著更长的加压时间内增强血流(10.9秒对6.3秒),排出的静脉血明显更多(121±68毫升对81±63毫升;P<0.001)。同样,序贯加压装置每小时排出的血液总量比快速充气装置高100%(9685±5426毫升对4853±3658毫升;P<0.001)。尽管快速充气装置的峰值速度增强更高,但血流增强(平均血流速度的乘积)与序贯加压装置相当(669±367对771±574厘米/秒;P=0.223),主要是因为快速充气装置在初始血流激增后未能维持血流增强。

结论

与快速充气装置相比,序贯加压显示出血流动力学优势。通过感知再充盈时间进一步增强了这种优势,这导致随着时间推移有更多的加压周期。两种装置在预防深静脉血栓形成方面的相对疗效应在未来研究中进行测试。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验