Lavy C B, Keene G S, Begovic M, Strauss S
UCL Hospitals, London.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996 Jan;78(1):56-8.
A comparative study was made between 146 patients receiving blood transfusion at the State Hospital, Sarajevo, in a 3-month period of peace (group 1) and 250 patients receiving transfusions in a 3-month period of war (group 2). In group 1, trauma accounted for only 7% of transfusions while it accounted for 99% in group 2. The threshold for transfusion was increased in war and the mean pretransfusion haematocrit in group 2 was 21%, compared with 27% in group 1 (P < 0.001). Less blood was also transfused per patient in war with a mean transfusion volume of 1.1 units in group 2 compared with 2.6 units in group 1 (P < 0.001). The reasons and justification for such a conservative transfusion practice in a besieged city are discussed.
对萨拉热窝州立医院在3个月和平时期接受输血的146名患者（第1组）和在3个月战争时期接受输血的250名患者（第2组）进行了一项对比研究。在第1组中，创伤导致的输血仅占7%，而在第2组中这一比例为99%。战争期间输血阈值提高，第2组输血前平均血细胞比容为21%，而第1组为27%（P<0.001）。战争期间每位患者的输血量也较少，第2组平均输血量为1.1单位，而第1组为2.6单位（P<0.001）。文中讨论了在被围困城市采取这种保守输血做法的原因和依据。
