三种中药导泻剂在结肠镜检查时肠道清洁效果的评价  

Estimating the Bowel Cleaning Effect of Three Different Herbal Laxatives When Electronic Colonoscopy Inspection

作　　者：石蕾[1] 尹一然[1] 陈霞[1] 

机构地区：[1]泸州医学院附属医院,四川泸州646000

出　　处：《四川中医》2015年第12期104-105,共2页Journal of Sichuan of Traditional Chinese Medicine

摘　　要：目的:观察三种不同中药在电子结肠镜检查时肠道清洁的效果,并对其进行综合评价。方法:将270例患者随机分为:A、B、C组。A组口服芒硝,B组口服番泻叶,C组口服硫酸镁,对几组肠道准备清洁级别,肠道气泡率,及不良反应发生率进行记录。结果:肠道清洁程度有效率A、B、C组分别为90.2%、84.3%、89.1%,A、C之间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、C组分别与B组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05);肠道气泡满意率分别为87.8%、91.1%、86.7%,三组之间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05);患者服药过程中不良反应发生率分别为5.0%、10.0%、25.6%,A、B、C组之间有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:芒硝与硫酸镁在结肠镜检查中肠道清洁效果相当,两者优于番泻叶,不良反应发生率硫酸镁组最高,综合评价芒硝作为肠道准备时导泻药物选择更为理想。Objective ： To observe the effect of three different Chinese herbs in bowel cleaning before electronic colonoseopy, then evaluate the effect. Methods： Randomly divided 270patients into A, B, C group. Taking mirabilite orally in group A, group B was treated with sennae, and group C use magnesium sulfate. Recording the clean level of intestinal preparation, intestinal gas rate, and adverse reactions occur rate. Results： The enteric cleanliness effective rate of group A, B, C group were 90. 2%, 84. 3% and 89. 1%, there was no significant difference between A and C （P〉0. 05）, group A and C had significant difference when compared with group B （P〈0. 05） ; intestinal bubble satisfaction rate were 87.8%, 91.1%, 86. 7%, no significant differ- ence （P〉0. 05） ; the drug adverse reaction rate were 5.0% , 10. 0% , 25.6%, the three groups had significant difference （P〈 0. 05）. Conclusion： The mirabilite and magnesium sulfate show the same effective in bowel cleaning before electronic colonosco- py, but both superior to senna, adverse reactions occurr highest in magnesium sulfate group, mirabilite is more ideal in bowel cleaning as a cathartic drug when comprehensive evaluation.

关 键 词：芒硝 硫酸镁 番泻叶 电子结肠镜 肠道清洁 

分 类 号：R445[医药卫生—影像医学与核医学]