肠瘘患者两种肠内营养支持方式的对比分析  

Comparison of two types of enteral nutrition in patients with intestinal fistula

作　　者：王钰[1] 康悦[2] 周建荣[1] 

机构地区：[1]重庆医科大学护理学院,400016 [2]哈尔滨医科大学附属第二医院普外三科黑龙江省营养支持治疗中心

出　　处：《中华医学杂志》2013年第30期2364-2366,共3页National Medical Journal of China

摘　　要：目的评价家庭肠内营养和住院肠内营养两种支持方式对肠瘘病人的影响。方法选择82例肠瘘行肠内营养支持的病人作为研究对象，分为家庭肠内营养组（42例）和住院肠内营养组（40例），评估生活质量以健康人为正常对照组（40例）。对比两种支持方式的并发症发生率、住院时间、肠内营养时间和费用，采用生命质量普适性测定量表（SF-36）对两组病人的生活质量进行评估。结果与住院肠内营养组（115．4±31．0）d相比家庭肠内营养组住院时间短（60．2±8．5）d，总治疗费用低[（15．28±2．42）万元与（19．38±3．17）万元，P≤0．01]，生活质量明显提高，二者的肠内营养时间及并发症的发生率差异无统计学意义。结论家庭肠内营养在住院时间、总费用和生活质量方面存在优势，是安全、合理、有效的肠内营养支持方式。Objective To evaluate the impact between home versus hospital enteral nutrition in patients with intestinal fistula. Methods A clinical trial containing 82 patients of intestinal fistula with enteralxx nutrition was conducted. All cases were divided into 3 groups： home enteral nutrition （n = 42 ） , hospital enteral nutrition （ n = 40 ） and normal control for assessment of quality of life （ n = 40 ）. The incidence of complications, hospitalization duration, days of enteral nutrition and medical costs were compared between two enteral nutrition ways. Quality of life was assessed with SF-36 questionnaire at the same time. Results Compared with the hospital enteral nutrition group, the home enteral nutrition group had a shorter hospital stay. The costs of treatment showed a significant decrease and the quality of life significantly improved. No significant difference existed between two types in the length of enteral nutrition and the incidence of complications. Conclusion Home enteral nutrition is safe, rational and effective for patients with intestinal fistula.

关 键 词：肠瘘 营养支持 并发症 生活质量 

分 类 号：R459.3[医药卫生—治疗学]