Suppr超能文献

正反方辩论:院前输血——是否应应用于平民创伤?

Pro-Con Debate: Prehospital Blood Transfusion-Should It Be Adopted for Civilian Trauma?

作者信息

Dudaryk Roman, Heim Catherine, Ruetzler Kurt, Pivalizza Evan G

机构信息

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine, and Pain Management, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida.

Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital, CHUV Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 2022 Apr 1;134(4):678-682. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005747.

Abstract

Exsanguination is the leading cause of death in severely injured patients; nevertheless, prehospital blood transfusion (PHT) remains a controversial topic. Here, we review the pros and cons of PHT, which is now routine in treatment of military trauma patients in the civilian setting. While PHT may improve survival in those who suffer blunt injury or require prolonged transport from the site of injury, PHT for civilian trauma generally is not supported by high-quality evidence. This article was originally presented as a pro-con debate at the 2020 meeting of the European Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care.

摘要

失血是重伤患者的主要死因;然而,院前输血(PHT)仍然是一个有争议的话题。在此,我们回顾了院前输血的利弊,目前在平民环境中治疗军事创伤患者时,院前输血已成为常规操作。虽然院前输血可能会提高钝性伤患者或需要从受伤地点长时间转运患者的生存率,但平民创伤的院前输血一般没有高质量证据支持。本文最初是在2020年欧洲麻醉学和重症监护学会会议上作为一场正反方辩论发表的。

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