- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
中医综合护理干预在急性心肌梗死患者中应用价值分析
中医综合护理干预在急性心肌梗死患者中的应用价值分析
[摘要] 目的 分析研究中?t综合护理干预在急性心肌梗死患者中的临床应用价值。 方法 纳入于2015年4月~2016年11月来我院管辖社区的心肌梗死患者共200例,利用随机数表法分为两组,分别为对照组和试验组,每组各100例。对照组给予常规药物治疗,试验组给予常规药物治疗同时联合中医综合护理干预,观察两组患者临床治疗效果及预后情况。 结果 治疗前两组患者ADL分数比较,差异无统计学差异(P0.05),治疗后对照组患者ADL评分为(61.4±3.6)分,试验组为(87.6±4.3)分,两组比较有统计学差异(P0.05)。对照组患者治疗有效率为81.0%,试验组为99.0%,两组比较有统计学差异(P0.05)。治疗后3个月两组患者均有不良心血管事件发生,对照组不良心血管事件发生率为10.0%,试验组为2.0%,两组比较有统计学差异(P0.05)。 结论 中医综合护理干预对急性心肌梗死患者有较高的临床疗效,可以显著改善患者预后情况,提高患者的临床治愈率,减少治疗后不良心血管事件发生率,值得推广使用。
[关键词] 中医护理;社区干预;心肌梗死;应用价值
[中图分类号] R248.1; R542.2+2 [文献标识码] B [文章编号] 1673-9701(2017)14-0148-04
[Abstract] Objective To study the clinical value of traditional Chinese medicine comprehensive nursing intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods A total of 200 patients with myocardial infarction from the community dominated by our hospital from April 2015 to November 2016 were enrolled,which were divided into two groups including the control group and the experimental group according to random number table, with 100 cases in each group.The patients in the control group were treated with conventional drugs, and the patients in the experimental group were treated with traditional Chinese medicine comprehensive nursing intervention combined with conventional drugs. The clinical treatment effect and the prognosis of the two groups were observed. Results There was no significant difference in ADL score between the two groups before treatment(P0.05). The ADL score of the control group was(61.4±3.6) points and the ADL score of the experimental group was(87.6±4.3) points. The data between the two groups were statistically different(P0.05). The effective rate was 81.0% in the control group and that of 99.0% in the experimental group. There was significant difference between the two groups (P0.05).Within three months after treatment, patients in both groups had adverse cardiovascular events. The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was 10.0% in the control group and th
原创力文档


文档评论(0)