头孢克罗与头孢拉定治疗呼吸道感染临床疗效分析  

Clinical efficacy of cefaclor and cefradine in treatment of respiratory tract infections

作　　者：龙志伟 廖彧 林绍怡 钟邦兴 邓复民 肖广智 

机构地区：[1]广东省佛山市顺德区龙江医院急诊科,广东佛山528318 [2]广东省佛山市顺德区龙江医院中医科,广东佛山528318 [3]广东省佛山市顺德区龙江医院检验科,广东佛山528318

出　　处：《中国现代医生》2014年第4期55-57,共3页China Modern Doctor

摘　　要：目的 探讨呼吸道感染采用头孢克罗与头孢拉定治疗的临床疗效.方法 选取2013年1～6月我院收治的呼吸道感染患者98例进行分析,根据治疗方法分成观察组和对照组,每组49例.观察组采用头孢克罗治疗,对照组采用头孢拉定治疗,观察两组临床疗效、细菌敏感性、细菌清除率、治疗前后体温、白细胞计数和呼吸频率变化以及不良反应发生情况.结果 观察组治疗总有效率、细菌敏感性、细菌清除率明显高于对照组（P ＜ 0.05）;两组治疗后体温、白细胞计数均有显著下降（P ＜ 0.05）,呼吸频率有明显提高（P ＜ 0.05）,且观察组改善水平明显优于对照组（P ＜ 0.05）;两组均无严重不良反应发生.结论头孢克罗治疗呼吸道感染效果明显优于头孢拉定,值得临床推广.Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of cefaclor and cefradine in treatment of respiratory tract in- fections. Methods From January to June 2013 in our hospital, 98 patients with respiratory tract infections were analyzed, according to the treatment they were divided into observation group and control group with 49 cases each group, the observation group used cefaclor treatment while the control group used cefradine treatment, to observe clinical efficacy, bacterial sensitivity bacterial clearance rate, body temperature, white blood cell count, and respiratory rate changes before and after treatment and the occurrence of adverse reactions. Results The total effective rate, bacterial sensitivity and bacterial clearance rate of observation group were significantly higher than control group （P 〈 0.05）; After treatment, body temperature, white blood cell counts were significantly lower （P 〈 0.05）, respiratory rate had improved significantly （P 〈 0.05）, and the observation group improved significantly better than the control group （P 〈 0.05）; There were no serious adverse events. Conclusion Cefaclor treatment of respiratory tract infections is better than cefradine, worthy of promotion.

关 键 词：头孢克罗 头孢拉定 呼吸道感染 

分 类 号：R56[医药卫生—呼吸系统]