康复干预对冠心病患者生活质量的影响

目的：探讨康复干预对冠心病患者生活质量的影响。方法：选择本院心内科冠心病患者108例，被随机均分为常规治疗组和康复干预组（在常规治疗的基础上接受床旁康复治疗），疗程8周，采用36项简易一般健康调查表（SF-36）对两组患者治疗前后生活质量进行评价。结果：初评时，两组SF．36评分比较差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。8周治疗结束复评时常规治疗组所有SF．36评分与治疗前比较均无显著差异（P〉0．05）。康复干预组治疗后与初评时及常规治疗组治疗后比较，除生理机能指标无显著差异（P〉O．05）外，其他指标均有显著改善[生理：躯体疼痛（69．89±16．84）比（54．62±16．77）比（56．63±6．74），生理职能（54．56±35．62）比（29．84±39．07）比（29．44±37．12），总体健康（65．74±15．82）比（48．49±8．79）比（48．28±10．29），心理：活力（62．92±14．31）比（37．57±16．65）比（38．31±16．32），情感职能（51．37±18．94）比（25．05±14．57）比（28．27±12．04），社会功能（74．02±9．35）比（47．49±9．87）比（51．35±9．29），精神健康（72．18±13．26）比（55．69±14．05）比（58．43±11．36）]，P均〈0．01）]。结论：康复干预能有效提高冠心病患者的生活质量。

Influence of rehabilitation intervention on quality of life in patients with coronary heart disease

Objective： To explore influence of rehabilitation intervention on quality of life in patients with coronary heart disease （CHD）. Methods： A total of 108 CHD patients were selected from department of cardiology of our hospital. They were randomly and equally divided into routine treatment group and rehabilitation intervention group （received bedside rehabilitation interventionbased on routine treatment）. The course of treatment was eight weeks. The medical outcomes 36 item short form health survey （SF-36） was used to assess quality of life before and after treatment of two groups. Results.. There were no significant difference in scores of SF-36 at primary evaluation between two groups, P〉0.05. when re-evaluation after eight-week treatment, there were no significant difference in all scores of SF-36 in routine treatment group compared with before treatment, P〉0.05. Compared with primary e- valuation and routine treatment＇ group after treatment, there were significant improvements in all indexes EPhysiolo- gy： bodily pain （69. 895：16.84） vs. （54.62＋16.77） vs. （56. 63±6.74）, role-physical （54.56±35.62） vs. （29.84 ±39.07） vs. （29.44±37.12）, general health （65.74±15.82） vs. （48.49±8.79） vs. （48.28±10.29）, Psychology： vitality （62.92±14.31） vs. （37.57±16.65） vs. （38.31±16.32）, role-emotional （51.37±18.94） vs. （25.05 ±14.57） vs. （28.27± 12.04）, social functioning （74.02±9.35） vs, （47.49± 9.87） vs. （51.35± 9.29）, mental health （72. 18±13.26） vs. （55.69±14.05） vs. （58. 43±11.36）, P〉0.01 all] except physical functioning in rehabilitation intervention group after treatment. Conclusion： Rehabilitation intervention can effectively improve quality of life in patients with, coronary heart disease.