机构地区:[1]龙岩人民医院呼吸与危重症医学科,福建龙岩364000
出 处:《中外医疗》2024年第32期11-15,24,共6页China & Foreign Medical Treatment
摘 要:目的探讨老年支气管扩张合并感染采用局部注药与支气管肺泡灌洗联合治疗的疗效。方法回顾性选取2021年1月—2023年1月龙岩人民医院收治的80例老年支气管扩张合并感染患者的临床资料,根据不同的治疗方法分为联合治疗组和灌洗治疗组,各40例。联合治疗组在常规治疗基础上局部注药联合支气管肺泡灌洗治疗,灌洗治疗组在常规治疗基础上支气管肺泡灌洗治疗。比较两组肺功能、痰液性状、血气指标、炎症指标、临床疗效、不良反应发生情况、恢复情况。结果联合治疗组肺功能优于灌洗治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。联合治疗组黏液密度、脓性粘液、黏液体积评分均低于灌洗治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。联合治疗组血气指标和炎症指标均优于灌洗治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。联合治疗组治疗总有效率为92.50%(37/40),高于灌洗治疗组的75.00%(30/40),差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.501,P<0.05)。两组患者不良反应发生率比较[12.50%(5/40)vs 10.00%(4/40)],差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.000,P>0.05)。联合治疗组退热时间、静脉抗生素应用时间、住院时间、咳浓痰消失时间均短于灌洗治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论老年支气管扩张合并感染患者采用局部注药与支气管肺泡灌洗联合治疗,可以提高治疗有效率、改善血气指标和炎症反应。Objective To investigate the efficacy of local injection combined with bronchoalveolar lavage in the treatment of bronchiectasis complicated with infection in the elderly.Methods The clinical data of 80 elderly patients with bronchiectasis complicated with infection admitted to Longyan People Hospital from January 2021 to January 2023 were retrospectively selected.According to different treatment methods,they were divided into combined treatment group and lavage treatment group,40 cases in each group.The combined treatment group was treated with local injection combined with bronchoalveolar lavage on the basis of conventional treatment,and the lavage treatment group was treated with bronchoalveolar lavage on the basis of conventional treatment.The lung function,sputum traits,blood gas indexes,inflammatory indexes,clinical efficacy,adverse reactions and recovery were compared between the two groups.Results The lung function of the combined treatment group was higher than that of the lavage treatment group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The scores of mucus density,purulent mucus and mucus volume in the combined treatment group were lower than those in the lavage treatment group,and the differences were statistically significant(all P<0.05).The blood gas indexes and inflammatory indexes of the combined treatment group were better than those of the lavage treatment group,and the differences were statistically significant(both P<0.05).The total effective rate of the combined treatment group was 92.50%(37/40),which was higher than 75.00%(30/40)of the lavage treatment group,and the difference was statistically significant(χ2=4.501,P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups[12.50%(5/40)vs 10.00%(4/40)](χ2=0.000,P>0.05).The antipyretic time,intravenous antibiotic application time,hospitalization time and disappearance time of cough and sputum in the combined treatment group were shorter than those in the lavage treatment group,and th
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...