机构地区:[1]郑州大学第一附属医院心血管内科,450052 [2]郑州大学第一附属医院医务处,450052 [3]郑州大学第一附属医院财务处,450052 [4]北京大学人民医院心脏中心 [5]舟山医院心血管内科 [6]郑州大学人民医院心血管内科 [7]上海黄浦区中心医院心血管内科 [8]中国医学科学院北京协和医学院阜外心血管病医院心血管内科
出 处:《中华心血管病杂志》2013年第12期1000-1005,共6页Chinese Journal of Cardiology
基 金:河南省医学科技攻关计划项目(201203041,2011020012,201303068);河南省教育厅科学技术研究重点项目科技攻关计划(13A320443,2011A320028);郑州大学第一附属医院青年创新基金项目;河南省卫生科技创新型人才工程中青年科技创新人才项目;浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目基金(2011KYB164);舟山市科技计划项目基金(2011C12234),志谢 本戒烟项目在设计、实施、汇总过程中,得到了相关医院及同仁参与支持.北京大学人民医院心脏中心(王伟民、刘健、郑春华、段江波、宋俊贤、苑翠珍);郑州大学第一附属医院心血管内科(刘瑞云、张金盈、袁园、吕培生、邱春光),超声科(滑少华);北京大学航天临床医学院心血管内科(赵运涛);成都市第三人民医院心血管内科(田芸);上海交通大学附属仁济医院心血管内科(高谊);首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院心血管内科12病房(韩红亚、杨世伟);江门市中心医院心血管内科(任强);上海交通大学附属上海市第九人民医院心血管内科(薛超);四川省人民医院心血管内科(陈丽竹);重庆医科大学附属第一医院心血管内科(杨渊、王长鹰、王力、陆凯)
摘 要:目的评估强化门诊戒烟随访对冠心病的吸烟患者戒烟效果及临床预后的影响。方法入选在我院心血管内科门诊就诊并确诊有冠心病的吸烟患者140例,按1:1采用随机数字表法分为强化戒烟门诊随访组(随访组)70例和常规治疗组(常规组)70例,分别进行不同干预。于6个月后比较两组的戒烟情况、戒烟误区、心血管事件率、药物使用率、门诊医疗费用和生活质量。并在研究结束时,对该方案进行可行性分析。结果基线时,两组患者的年龄、性别、伴发疾病、药物使用率差异均无统计学意义(P均〉0.05)。随访统计时,随访组的戒烟率高于常规组[34.2%(24/70)比5.7%(4/70),P〈0.01];总心血管事件率低于常规组[21.4%(15/70)比47.1%(33/70),P〈0.01];药物使用率均高于常规组(P均〈0.05),其中降脂药[95.3%(67/70)比80.4%(56/70)]、β受体阻滞剂[82.4%(57/70)比41.3%(28/70)]和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂和(或)血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂[61.4%(43/70)比34.4%(24/70)]在随访组中的高使用率表现更为明显(P〈0.01);门诊医疗费用中位数明显低于常规组(3789.3元比4984.2元,P〈0.01);参考MYO健康状况调查问卷,生活质量各项评分均明显高于常规组(P〈0.01)。对两组戒烟失败原因统计发现,吸烟误区中排名前3位的是:①别人比我吸得更多,现在还健在[90.3%(56/62)];②吸烟使人放松,消除烦恼[70.9%(44/62)];③朋友聊天,喝酒吸烟[66.1%(41/62)]。门诊强化戒烟随访患者对该方案总体很满意率达42.8%,满意率达50.0%。结论强化门诊戒烟随访可以明显提高冠心病吸烟患者的戒烟率、药物使用率以及生活质量,降低医疗费用。Objective To evaluate the effects and clinical prognosis of out-patient department-based smoking cessation services for coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. Methods A total of 140 smoking patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease in our cardiovascular department were randomly divided into the intensive smoking cessation clinic follow-up group (intervention group, patients were informed on the importance and methods to quit smoking at the first visit and reminded months, n = 70) and the conventional treatment group (control group, for that at months interval for 6 n =70). After 6 months, the smoking status, cardiovascular event rates, drug usage, out-patient medical costs and quality of life were compared between the two groups. Results Age, gender, concomitant diseases, drug usage were similar between the two groups at baseline ( all P 〉 0. 05 ). After 6 months, smoking quit rate [ 34. 2% (24/70) vs. 5.7% (4/70) ,P 〈0. 01 ], drug use rates: lipid-lowering drugs [95.3% (67/70) vs. 80. 4% (56/ 70)1, 13 blockers [82.4% (57/70) vs. 41.3% (28/70)], and ACEI/ARB [61.4% (43/70) vs. 34.4% (24/70)] were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group, while total cardiovascular event rates [21.4% (15/70) vs. 47. 1% (33/70) ,P 〈0. 01 ] and out-patient medical costs (3789. 3 RMB vs. 4984. 2 RMB, P 〈 0. 01 ) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group. The quality of life scores derived from MYO health survey questionnaire was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group ( P 〈 0. 01 ). The top three reasons responsible for continuous smoking for all patients failed to quit smoking were : (1)others smoked more than me and still alive and healthy [ 90. 3 % (56/62) ] ; (2)smoking helped me to keep relaxed and reduce trouble in daily work and life [70. 9% (44/62)]; (3)smoking was essential while chatting and drinking with friends [ 66. 1% �
分 类 号:R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病]
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...