中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2014年
32期
123-126
,共4页
李翠兰%徐学梅%孙大芳%郑凤兰%吕占云
李翠蘭%徐學梅%孫大芳%鄭鳳蘭%呂佔雲
리취란%서학매%손대방%정봉란%려점운
护理干预%恩必普%NIHSS评分%ADL评分增分率%复发事件
護理榦預%恩必普%NIHSS評分%ADL評分增分率%複髮事件
호리간예%은필보%NIHSS평분%ADL평분증분솔%복발사건
Nursing intervention%dl-3-n-butylphthalide%Health stroke scale score%The increasing rate of ADL score%Recurrent event
目的：探讨护理干预联合恩必普治疗对社区缺血性脑卒中(AIS)患者生活质量的影响。方法选择2012年1~12月期间在济宁医学院附属医院神经内科住院的105例AIS患者。所有患者被分为三组，其中对照组(33例)给予神经内科常规二级预防标准化预防药物，随访12个月；护理干预组(34例)给予神经内科常规二级预防标准化预防药物+护理干预，随访12个月；护理干预+恩必普组(38例)给予神经内科常规二级预防标准化预防药物+护理干预+恩必普强化治疗，随访12个月。采用美国国立卫生院神经功能缺损评分(NIHSS)评分差、日常生活能力评分(ADL)增分率评价干预效果，并对研究期间12个月内缺血性脑卒中复发事件进行统计。统计学处理采用SPSS 17.0统计软件对所得数据进行分析，各测量参数以均数依标准差表示，组间比较采用单因素方差分析和F检验，两两比较采用SNK-q检验，以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果三组间NIHSS评分差差异有高度统计学意义(F=9.116，P=0.007)；护理干预组、护理干预+恩必普组与对照组比较，差异均有统计学意义(P=0.019、0.002)，护理干预组与护理干预+恩必普组比较，差异无统计学意义(P=0.219)。三组间ADL增分率比较，差异有高度统计学意义(F=222.864，P<0.01)；护理干预组、护理干预+恩必普组与对照组比较，差异均有高度统计学意义(均P<0.01)，护理干预组与护理干预+恩必普组比较，差异无统计学意义(P=0.317)。三组AIS复发事件进行χ2检验，结果显示，护理干预组、护理干预+恩必普组与对照组比较，差异均有统计学意义(χ2=4.51，P=0.032；χ2=3.01，P=0.036)，而护理干预组与护理干预+恩必普组比较，差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.78，P>0.05)。结论积极的护理干预可以显著改善AIS患者生活质量；应用3个疗程的恩必普治疗+护理干预效果不明显。
目的：探討護理榦預聯閤恩必普治療對社區缺血性腦卒中(AIS)患者生活質量的影響。方法選擇2012年1~12月期間在濟寧醫學院附屬醫院神經內科住院的105例AIS患者。所有患者被分為三組，其中對照組(33例)給予神經內科常規二級預防標準化預防藥物，隨訪12箇月；護理榦預組(34例)給予神經內科常規二級預防標準化預防藥物+護理榦預，隨訪12箇月；護理榦預+恩必普組(38例)給予神經內科常規二級預防標準化預防藥物+護理榦預+恩必普彊化治療，隨訪12箇月。採用美國國立衛生院神經功能缺損評分(NIHSS)評分差、日常生活能力評分(ADL)增分率評價榦預效果，併對研究期間12箇月內缺血性腦卒中複髮事件進行統計。統計學處理採用SPSS 17.0統計軟件對所得數據進行分析，各測量參數以均數依標準差錶示，組間比較採用單因素方差分析和F檢驗，兩兩比較採用SNK-q檢驗，以P<0.05為差異有統計學意義。結果三組間NIHSS評分差差異有高度統計學意義(F=9.116，P=0.007)；護理榦預組、護理榦預+恩必普組與對照組比較，差異均有統計學意義(P=0.019、0.002)，護理榦預組與護理榦預+恩必普組比較，差異無統計學意義(P=0.219)。三組間ADL增分率比較，差異有高度統計學意義(F=222.864，P<0.01)；護理榦預組、護理榦預+恩必普組與對照組比較，差異均有高度統計學意義(均P<0.01)，護理榦預組與護理榦預+恩必普組比較，差異無統計學意義(P=0.317)。三組AIS複髮事件進行χ2檢驗，結果顯示，護理榦預組、護理榦預+恩必普組與對照組比較，差異均有統計學意義(χ2=4.51，P=0.032；χ2=3.01，P=0.036)，而護理榦預組與護理榦預+恩必普組比較，差異無統計學意義(χ2=1.78，P>0.05)。結論積極的護理榦預可以顯著改善AIS患者生活質量；應用3箇療程的恩必普治療+護理榦預效果不明顯。
목적：탐토호리간예연합은필보치료대사구결혈성뇌졸중(AIS)환자생활질량적영향。방법선택2012년1~12월기간재제저의학원부속의원신경내과주원적105례AIS환자。소유환자피분위삼조，기중대조조(33례)급여신경내과상규이급예방표준화예방약물，수방12개월；호리간예조(34례)급여신경내과상규이급예방표준화예방약물+호리간예，수방12개월；호리간예+은필보조(38례)급여신경내과상규이급예방표준화예방약물+호리간예+은필보강화치료，수방12개월。채용미국국립위생원신경공능결손평분(NIHSS)평분차、일상생활능력평분(ADL)증분솔평개간예효과，병대연구기간12개월내결혈성뇌졸중복발사건진행통계。통계학처리채용SPSS 17.0통계연건대소득수거진행분석，각측량삼수이균수의표준차표시，조간비교채용단인소방차분석화F검험，량량비교채용SNK-q검험，이P<0.05위차이유통계학의의。결과삼조간NIHSS평분차차이유고도통계학의의(F=9.116，P=0.007)；호리간예조、호리간예+은필보조여대조조비교，차이균유통계학의의(P=0.019、0.002)，호리간예조여호리간예+은필보조비교，차이무통계학의의(P=0.219)。삼조간ADL증분솔비교，차이유고도통계학의의(F=222.864，P<0.01)；호리간예조、호리간예+은필보조여대조조비교，차이균유고도통계학의의(균P<0.01)，호리간예조여호리간예+은필보조비교，차이무통계학의의(P=0.317)。삼조AIS복발사건진행χ2검험，결과현시，호리간예조、호리간예+은필보조여대조조비교，차이균유통계학의의(χ2=4.51，P=0.032；χ2=3.01，P=0.036)，이호리간예조여호리간예+은필보조비교，차이무통계학의의(χ2=1.78，P>0.05)。결론적겁적호리간예가이현저개선AIS환자생활질량；응용3개료정적은필보치료+호리간예효과불명현。
Objective To investigate the effect of nursing intervention combined with dl-3-n-butylphthalide (NBP) on the quality of life in patients with ischemic stroke in the community. Methods 105 ischemic stroke patients were se-lected from the inpatient of Department of Neurology Medicine of the Affiliated Hospital of Ji’ning Medical College of from January to December 2012. They were assigned to three groups: the control group (n= 33) received standardized secondary drug prevention, following-up for 12 months;nursing intervention group (n=34) received standardized sec-ondary drug prevention combined with nursing intervention, following-up for 12 months; nursing intervention combined with NBP group (n = 38) received standardized secondary drug prevention plus NBP combined with nursing interven-tion, following-up for 12 months. The efficacy measures were evaluated by the difference of health stroke scale (NIHSS) score, the increasing rate of activity of daily living (ADL). The recurrent event was analyzed at the 12 months. SPSS 17.0 software was used to do the statistical analysis, between the groups the results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and F test, SNK-q test was used to compare the difference between two groups. A probability value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results The NIHSS score difference between the three groups was statistically significant (F= 9.116, P = 0.007); there were differences between the nursing intervention group compared with the control group and the nursing intervention combined with NBP group compared with the control group (P=0.019, 0.002), there was no difference between the nursing intervention group and the nursing intervention combined with NBP group (P = 0.219). The increasing rate of ADL between the three groups was significantly different (F=222.864, P<0.01), there were significant differences between the nursing intervention group and the nursing intervention combined with NBP group compared with the control group (P<0.01), there was no difference between the nursing intervention group and nursing intervention combined with NBP group (P=0.317). AIS recurrence events between the three groups were analyzed by χ2 test, there were significant differences be-tween the nursing intervention group compared with control group and the nursing intervention combined with NBP group compared with the control group (χ2=4.51, P=0.032;χ2=3.01, P=0.036, respectively). There was no difference between the nursing intervention group and the nursing intervention combined with NBP group (χ2=1.78, P < 0.05). Conclusion Active nursing intervention in the community is efficacious to improve the quality of life and prevents the recurrent event in patients with ischemic stroke in the community, and there is no evidence that the NBP is efficacious in these patients.
