论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨三联干预措施对儿童哮喘症状改善的影响。方法随机将80例哮喘患儿分为对照组和治疗组,各40例。对照组采用常规治疗;治疗组在对照组治疗的基础上,采取三联干预进行干预治疗。观察2组干预前后的哮喘控制情况、肺功能、治疗的依从性、哮喘发作次数、急诊就诊次数、静脉用药次数、住院治疗的次数。结果干预后的哮喘控制率对照组为62.5%(25/40),治疗组为92.5%(37/40),2组差异有统计学意义(χ2=10.32,P<0.01)。干预后的用力肺活量(FVC)、呼气峰流速(Pre-FEV1)、第1秒时间肺活量(Pre-FEF)对照组和治疗组均明显高于干预前(均P<0.05),2组干预后的FVC、Pre-FEV1、Pre-FEF指标水平差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对照组干预后的医生治疗方案、定期复诊、规范用药较干预前无明显变化(P>0.05),但干预后的规避诱发因素较干预前差异显著(P<0.05);治疗组干预后的配合医生治疗方案、定期复诊、规范用药、规避诱发因素均明显高于干预前(P<0.05),2组干预后的配合医生治疗方案、定期复诊、规范用药、规避诱发因素差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预后的发作次数、急诊就诊次数、住院次数、静脉用药次数对照组和治疗组较干预前差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05),干预后的发作次数、急诊就诊次数、住院次数、静脉用药次数治疗组均少于对照组(P<0.05)。结论三联干预措施对儿童哮喘干预效果明显,可以改善患者的临床症状,提高患者的肺功能、哮喘控制情况、治疗的依从性,降低治疗及用药次数,值得在儿童哮喘的治疗中广泛应用。
Objective To investigate the effect of triple intervention on asthma symptoms in children. Methods Eighty asthmatic children were randomly divided into control group and treatment group, 40 cases each. The control group received routine treatment. The treatment group was treated with the triple intervention on the basis of the control group. The two groups were observed before and after the control of asthma, lung function, treatment compliance, the number of asthma attacks, the number of emergency visits, the number of intravenous drugs, hospitalization frequency. Results The control rate of asthma after intervention was 62.5% (25/40) in the control group and 92.5% (37/40) in the treatment group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (χ2 = 10.32, P <0.01). FVC, Pre-FEV1 and Pre-FEF were significantly higher in the control group and the treatment group than those before the intervention (all P <0.05). Two groups of interventions After the FVC, Pre-FEV1, Pre-FEF index level difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group (P> 0.05), but there was significant difference between the intervention group and the intervention group (P <0.05) The doctor’s treatment plan, regular referral, standardized medication and evasion-inducing factors were significantly higher than those before intervention (P <0.05). There was significant difference between the two groups in the treatment plan, regular referral, standardized medication and evasion-inducing factors P <0.05). The number of episodes after intervention, the number of emergency visits, the number of hospitalizations, the number of intravenous drugs in the control group and the treatment group were significantly different from those before the intervention (all P <0.05), the number of the attacks after the intervention, the number of emergency visits, the number of hospitalizations, The number of intravenous medication in treatment group was less than that in control group (P <0.05). Conclusion The triple intervention has obvious effects on asthma in children and can improve clinical symptoms, improve patients’ pulmonary function, control asthma, compliance with treatment, and reduce the number of treatment and medication. It is worthy of being widely used in the treatment of childhood asthma.