论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨与分析不同类型消化酶制剂治疗消化不良的临床疗效。方法选择2013年6月至2014年6月本院收治的90例消化不良患者,采用随机数字法将其分为对照组与实验组2组,实验组予以米曲菌胰酶片治疗,对照组予以复方消化酶胶囊治疗,比较2组治疗后的临床疗效及不良反应。结果 2组患者经治疗后,实验组显效26例,有效17例,无效2例,总有效率为95.56%;对照组显效15例,有效23例,无效7例,总有效率为84.44%;实验组临床疗效明显优于对照组,(χ~2=6.629,P=0.036)。对照组共有3例出现不良反应,占6.67%;治疗组共有2例出现不良反应,占4.44%;2组不良反应的发生率差异(χ~2=0.2118,P=0.645)。结论米曲菌胰酶片治疗消化不良的临床疗效明显优于复方消化酶胶囊治疗,且不良反应少。
Objective To investigate and analyze the clinical efficacy of different types of digestive enzymes in the treatment of indigestion. Methods Ninety patients with dyspepsia admitted to our hospital from June 2013 to June 2014 were randomly divided into two groups: control group and experimental group. Experimental group was treated with Aspergillus oryzae trypsin and control group To compound digestive enzyme capsules treatment, the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions after 2 groups were compared. Results In the two groups, 26 cases were markedly effective in the experimental group, 17 cases were effective, 2 cases were ineffective and the total effective rate was 95.56%. In the control group, 15 cases were markedly effective, 23 cases were effective and 7 cases were ineffective. The total effective rate was 84.44%. The clinical efficacy of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group (χ ~ 2 = 6.629, P = 0.036). There were 3 adverse reactions in the control group, accounting for 6.67%. There were 2 adverse reactions in the treatment group, accounting for 4.44%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (χ ~ 2 = 0.2118, P = 0.645). Conclusion Aspergillus microtitre is obviously superior to compound digestive enzyme in the treatment of dyspepsia with less adverse reactions.