CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价四种不同剂型活性炭在经口中毒治疗中的适用性.方法选取35名护士应用四种不同剂型活性炭进行模拟洗胃,分别填写可操作性调查表,记录洗胃时间、使用液体量、洗胃管堵塞次数并评出最优和最差剂型.选取50例健康志愿者分别口服四种不同剂型活性炭,填写适口,巨调查表,适口性分为很好、一般、可接受、难以接受.对数据进行统计学处理,评价四种剂型活性炭的临床适用性.结果护士可操作性调查组:不同刺型洗胃时间分别为:粉剂(151.8±17.8)s、混悬液(96.9±24.8)s、胶囊(319±82.4)s、片剂(314.3±93.3)s,四种剂型之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.001).胃管堵塞次数:粉剂和混悬液无堵塞,胶囊(4.00±5.00)次、片剂(5.55±3.00)次,四种剂型之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.001).志愿者适口性组:四种剂型活性炭适口性比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.001).在两组结果,每两种剂型比较,除胶囊和片剂之间无差异外(P>0.05),余三种剂型相互比较差异均有统计学意义.结论不同剂型活性炭临床适用性存在明显差别,护士可操作性混悬液最佳,粉剂、胶囊和片剂较差.胶囊和片剂适口性好,适于清醒依从性好的患者.混悬液和粉剂适口性不好,但更适合昏迷患者的临床抢救.
목적 평개사충불동제형활성탄재경구중독치료중적괄용성.방법선취35명호사응용사충불동제형활성탄진행모의세위,분별전사가조작성조사표,기록세위시간、사용액체량、세위관도새차수병평출최우화최차제형.선취50례건강지원자분별구복사충불동제형활성탄,전사괄구,거조사표,괄구성분위흔호、일반、가접수、난이접수.대수거진행통계학처리,평개사충제형활성탄적림상괄용성.결과호사가조작성조사조:불동자형세위시간분별위:분제(151.8±17.8)s、혼현액(96.9±24.8)s、효낭(319±82.4)s、편제(314.3±93.3)s,사충제형지간차이유통계학의의(P<0.001).위관도새차수:분제화혼현액무도새,효낭(4.00±5.00)차、편제(5.55±3.00)차,사충제형지간차이유통계학의의(P<0.001).지원자괄구성조:사충제형활성탄괄구성비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.001).재량조결과,매량충제형비교,제효낭화편제지간무차이외(P>0.05),여삼충제형상호비교차이균유통계학의의.결론불동제형활성탄림상괄용성존재명현차별,호사가조작성혼현액최가,분제、효낭화편제교차.효낭화편제괄구성호,괄우청성의종성호적환자.혼현액화분제괄구성불호,단경괄합혼미환자적림상창구.
Objective To evaluate the applicability of activated charcoal in treatment of oral poisoning. Methods The feasibility of clinical manipulation and tastiness of 4 forms of activated charcoal were investigated, with different dosage forms in 35 nurses and 50 volunteers, respectively. The feasibility of the clinical manipulation was assessed by gastrelavage time and block numbers of stomach duet,and the tastiness by volunteers' taking orally. Results The gastrolavage time (151.8±17.8) s for powder, (96.9±24.80) s for suspension, (319.0±82.4) s for tablet and (314.3±93.3) s for suspension(P <0.001). Conclusion There are significant differences in the applicability of activated charcoal in different dosage forms. The suspension is the best form in feasibility. Capsule and tablet are better than powder and suspension in tastiness. Suspension and powder are the worst to accept.