Conclusions There is more or less activation of extrinsic coagulation pathway in any kind of IHD.
结论各种不同类型IHD均可出现程度不等的外源性凝血途径的激活。
Had IHD been optimized from the onset, the trial might have reported better survival with this modality than with CRRT.
如果从试验一开始IHD组就被优化，其报道的生存率与CRRT组相比可能更高。
Methods IHD and CRRT were applied in 22 and 30 ARF patients with MODS, respectively. The effects were compared between the two groups.
方法应用间歇式血液透析(IHD)治疗急性肾衰竭并MODS病人22例，连续性肾脏替代(CRRT)治疗急性肾衰竭并MODS病人30例，比较其疗效。
The results of the above studies are surprising and certainly do not support the long-standing, widely held belief that CRRT provides better outcomes than IHD.
上述研究结果确实令人惊讶，而且肯定不支持长期存在且被广泛接受的关于CRRT转归优于IHD的观点。
Objective To investigate the efficacy of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) versus intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in severe acute renal failure (ARF) patients.
目的比较连续性肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)与间歇性血液透析(IHD)治疗重症急性肾功能衰竭(ARF)的疗效。
Its most common pathogenisis is the straightening and obstruction of the coronary arteries from atherosclerosis. Therefore, IHD is also called Atherosclerotic heart disease.
其最常见病因是冠状动脉粥样硬化引起的冠状动脉狭窄和闭塞，因此IHD可视为冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病。
Currently, few available studies in the nephrology literature provide substantive information on the safety or adverse effects of CRRT or IHD in the critically ill population.
目前在肾脏病文献中几乎找不到有关危重患者接受CRRT或IHD时安全性或不良事件实质性的信息。
ObjectiveTo investigate which is more effective between continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in patients with severe acute renal failure.
目的比较连续性肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)与间歇性血液透析治疗(IHD)对重症急性肾功能衰竭的治疗效果。
Given that CRRT has now been in clinical use for three decades, it is fair to ask whether research-based evidence supports the use of this more complex and expensive technology in preference to IHD.
既然CRRT用于临床实践已经三十多年了，询问是否有以研究为基础的证据支持优先于IHD使用这种复杂的、费用昂贵的技术是理所当然的。
Given that CRRT has now been in clinical use for three decades, it is fair to ask whether research-based evidence supports the use of this more complex and expensive technology in preference to IHD.
既然CRRT用于临床实践已经三十多年了，询问是否有以研究为基础的证据支持优先于IHD使用这种复杂的、费用昂贵的技术是理所当然的。
应用推荐