基于最佳证据的干预应用于呼吸危重症患者中的效果观察-《西部中医药》

文章信息/Info

Title:: Observation on the Effects of Intervention Based on the Best Evidence on Patients with Critical Respiratory Illness

Author(s):: ZHENG Yang, FAN Yun, DI Caixia; Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

Keywords:: critical respiratory illness; the best evidence; mechanical ventilation; adverse event

摘要:: 目的观察基于最佳证据的干预应用于呼吸危重症患者中的效果。方法将呼吸危重症患者128例随机分为观察组和对照组，每组64例。对照组采用常规措施干预，观察组采用基于最佳证据的措施干预。比较两组干预后机械通气时间、肌力等级、深静脉血栓发生情况、不良事件发生率及医护人员早期活动（包括床上坐位、床上主动活动、双腿悬空坐位、站立及步行）执行率。结果干预后观察组机械通气时间短于对照组（P＜0.05），肌力等级高于对照组（P＜0.05），深静脉血栓发生率低于对照组（P＜0.05）；观察组总不良事件发生率为1.56%（1/64），低于对照组的12.50%（8/64）（P＜0.05）；观察组医护人员早期各项活动执行率均高于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论基于最佳证据的干预可有效缩短呼吸危重症患者机械通气时间，改善其预后、促进康复。

Abstract:: ObjectiveTo observe the effecs of intervention based on the best evidence on the patients with critical respiratory illness. MethodsAll 128 patients were randomized into the observation group and the control group with 64 cases in each group. The control group adopted conventional intervention measures, and the observation group accepted the intervention measures based on the best evidence. To compare the time of mechanical ventilation, muscle strengthen grade, the incidences of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), the incidences of adverese events, the early implementation rate of medical staffs including sitting in bed, active activity in bed, legs suspended sitting, standing and walking after the intervention in the two groups. ResultsAfter the interven-tion, the observation group was shorter than the control group in the time of mechanical ventilation (P<0.05), higher than the control group in muscle strengthen (P<0.05), lower than the control group in the incidences of DVT (P<0.05), total incidences of adverse events of the observation group was 1.56% (1/64), lower than 12.50% (8/64) of the control group (P<0.05); the early implementation rate of medical staffs of the observation group was higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). ConclusionIntervention based on the best evidence could effectively reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with critical respiratory illness, improve the prognosis and promote the recovery.