蛛网膜下腔出血患者采用腰大池置管持续外引流与法舒地尔治疗的临床效果  

Clinical effect of treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients with sustained lumbar catheter drainage and fasudil

作　　者：罗伟坚[1] 陈东[1] 

机构地区：[1]暨南大学第二临床医学院深圳市人民医院神经外科,广东深圳518001

出　　处：《青岛医药卫生》2015年第3期169-171,共3页Qingdao Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的探讨蛛网膜下腔出血患者选择腰大池置管持续外引流+法舒地尔治疗的临床效果。方法选取我院动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血患者82例,通过随机数表法随机分组。C1组(观察组41例):临床选择腰大池置管持续外引流+法舒地尔治疗;C2组(对照组41例):临床选择腰大池置管持续外引流治疗。对比两组在临床疗效、治疗满意度及临床并发症等方面的差异。结果在临床治疗效果方面,C1组明显优于C2组(P<0.05);在患者头痛症状缓解时间、脑脊液恢复时间及临床并发症发生率方面,C1组明显少于C2组(P<0.05);在临床治疗满意度方面,C1组明显高于C2组(P<0.05)。结论针对蛛网膜下腔出血患者,临床选择腰大池置管持续外引流+法舒地尔治疗,临床效果明显,并发症发生率降低,凸显联合治疗蛛网膜下腔出血疾病的临床价值。Objective To discuss the clinical effect of treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients with sustained lumbar catheter drainage and fasudil. Methods Totally 82 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in our hospital were selected and divided into two groups ran- domly by table method. C1 group （observation group, 41 cases） ： clinical treatment by sustained lumbar catheter drainage and fasudil. C2 group （control group, 41 cases） ： clinical treatment by sustained lumbar catheter drainage. The difference of clinical efficacy, treatment satisfaction and clinical complications exists between the two groups were compared. Results After treatment, C1 group was significantly better than C2 group in terms of clinical outcomes（P〈0.05）; C1 group was significantly less than C2 group in terms of headache symptoms relief, cerebrospinal fluid recovery time and incidence of clinical complications（P〈0.05） ; C1 group was significantly higher than C2 group in terms of clinical treatment satisfaction（P〈0.05）. Conclusion After the treating with sustained lumbar catheter drainage and fasudil for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, the effect of clinical treatment has significantly improved, the incidence of complications has reduced, which highlights the clinical value of combined treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage disease.

关 键 词：蛛网膜下腔出血 腰大池置管持续外引流 法舒地尔 

分 类 号：R743.35[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]