检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:王静新[1] 金充[1] 廖黎[1] 张钦缔[1] 杨曼[1] 潘速跃[1]
机构地区:[1]南方医科大学南方医院神经内科,广东广州510515
出 处:《护士进修杂志》2012年第2期104-107,共4页Journal of Nurses Training
摘 要:目的比较动态血糖控制模式与传统血糖控制模式对并发应激性高血糖的神经危重症患者的干预效果,确定更为安全有效的血糖控制模式,从而降低异常血糖发生率,缩短患者住院时间,改善预后及减少医护工作量。方法将使用传统血糖控制模式进行血糖干预的患者设为对照组,将使用动态血糖控制模式进行血糖干预的患者设为实验组,观察比较两组患者异常血糖发生率、血糖波动范围、血糖恢复时间、患者住院时间、死亡率等指标。结果实验组异常血糖发生率、血糖值波动范围、血糖恢复时间、患者住院天数、死亡率均低于对照组,差异有显著意义(P<0.05)。结论动态血糖控制模式较传统血糖控制模式能有效地维持患者血糖的稳定,减少异常血糖发生率,从而降低死亡率。Objective To reduce the incidence of abnormal blood sugar and hospitalization time,improve prognosis and reduce health care's workload,and to determine the safer and more effective blood glucose control mode, and to compare the effects of dynamic blood glucose control mode and the traditional blood glucose control mode for neurological critically ill patients with stress hyperglycemia. Method The patients who used the traditional model of blood glucose control were selected as control group, the patients who used the dynamic model of blood glucose control mode were selected as experimental group, the incidence of abnormal blood glucose, blood glucose fluctuation, blood glucose recovery time, hospitalization time, mortality and other indicators between the two groups were measured and compared. Result The incidence of abnormal blood glucose, blood glucose fluctuation, blood glucose recovery time, hospitalization time and mortality rates in experimental group was much lower than that of in control group, there was significant difference between the two group (P〈0.05). Conclusion compared with the traditional blood glucose control model,dynamic blood glucose control model can effectively maintain a stable blood glucose, reducing the incidence of abnormal blood glucose,and reducing mortality
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.46