康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗老年人反流性食管炎的疗效分析

[目的]研究康复新液与埃索美拉唑联合治疗老年人反流性食管炎的疗效。[方法]将胃镜检查确诊的68例反流性食管炎老年患者随机分为两组,治疗组34例,口服康复新液10 ml,每日3次,埃索美拉唑20 mg,每日2次,口服;对照组34例,口服埃索美拉唑20 mg,每日2次。治疗前、治疗4周及8周分别记录临床症状,疗程结束后,胃镜复查评估反流性食管炎治疗情况。[结果]治疗4周后治疗组临床症状和胃镜下有效率分别为47.1%和58.8%;对照组分别为41.2%和47.1%(P0.05)。治疗8周后,治疗组上述指标分别为91.25%,94.1%;对照组分别为67.6%和76.5%(P0.05)。两组在用药期间,不良反应少,均有良好的耐受性。[结论]康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗老年人中、重度反流性食管炎,可提高食管炎的治愈率和有效率,缩短反流性食管炎的治愈时间。     

埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎的疗效观察

目的探讨埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎的临床疗效。方法将90例经内镜证实为Ⅱ、Ⅲ级反流性食管炎患者随机分为埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利组（A组）、奥美拉唑联合莫沙必利组（B组）和埃索美拉唑组（C组）,三组分别口服埃索美拉唑20 mg,2次/d,莫沙必利5 mg,3次/d;口服奥美拉唑20 mg,2次/d,莫沙必利5 mg,3次/d;以及口服埃索美拉唑20 mg,2次/d治疗,疗程8周,停药后复查胃镜,观察治愈率,并记录症状改善情况及不良反应。结果治疗8周后A、B、C三组症状改善总有效率分别为96.88%、75.00%、70.00%;胃镜下有效率分别为93.75%、71.43%、66.67%,A组与其他两组比较均有显著性差异（P〈0.05）。结论埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎有较高的治愈率和症状改善率,临床疗效明显优于奥美拉唑联合莫沙必利及单独应用埃索美拉唑治疗。     

康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡48例

[目的]观察康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡（PU）的疗效。[方法]胃镜检查确诊的88例PU患者随机分为2组,治疗组48例,口服康复新液10ml,3次／d;埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d。对照组40例,口服埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d,疗程4周。治疗期间每周随防1次,记录症状转归情况。疗程结束后,胃镜复查评估溃疡愈合情况。[结果]2组比较,各项临床症状的改善和疼痛消失差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;PU的愈合率和总有效率治疗组为91．6％和95．8％,对照组为80．0％和85．0％,2组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。用药期间,2组均未出现不良反应。[结论]康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗PU可明显改善患者临床症状,提高溃疡愈合率和总有效率。     

疏肝理气和胃降逆汤联合埃索美拉唑及莫沙比利治疗反流性食管炎48例

[目的]观察疏肝理气和胃降逆汤联合埃索美拉唑及莫沙比利治疗反流性食管炎（RE）的疗效。[方法]将88例RE随机分为2组,治疗组48例口服疏肝理气和胃降逆汤,每日2次,饭后2h服;同时早上空腹及晚上睡前服用埃索美拉唑20mg;饭前半小时服莫沙比利5mg,日3次。对照组40例仅服用埃索美拉唑及莫沙比利,用量与用法同治疗组,2组疗程均为10周。疗程结束后,复查胃镜,观察比较食管炎及反流症状的改善程度。[结果]治疗组临床症状总有效率为91．7％,对照组为62．5％（P〈0．01）;胃镜检查评价：治疗组总有效率为97．8％,对照组为78．5％（P〈0．05）。[结论]疏肝理气和胃降逆汤联合埃索美拉唑及莫沙比利治疗RE有较好的疗效。     

康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗慢性糜烂性胃炎合并胃黏膜隆起胃镜切除98例临床观察

[目的]探讨康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗慢性糜烂性胃炎合并胃黏膜隆起胃镜下电切术后的临床治疗效果。[方法]回顾性分析我院收治98例慢性糜烂性胃炎合并胃黏膜隆起胃镜下电切术后患者,随机分2组,治疗组50例,采用康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗;对照组48例,采用埃索美拉唑医治,对照2组疗效。[结果]根据患者病情分析,治疗组总有效率为92.00%;对照组总有效率为81.25%;治疗组明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]康复新液能有效修复胃黏膜,能快速减缓症状,增进糜烂及胃黏膜隆起电切术后人工溃疡面的愈合,避免复发,是医治慢性糜烂性胃炎合并胃黏膜隆起电切术后的有效药物,值得在临床中普遍推行。     

荆花胃康胶丸联合埃索美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡50例

[目的]观察荆花胃康胶丸联合埃索美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡（PU）的疗效。[方法]采用开放、随机、对照试验,将经胃镜检查确诊的97例PU患者随机分为2组,治疗组50例,口服荆花胃康胶丸160mg／次,3次／d,埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d;对照组47例,口服埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d。治疗期间每周随访1次,记录症状转归情况。疗程结束后,胃镜复查评估溃疡愈合情况。[结果]各项临床症状的改善和疼痛消失情况2组相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。PU的愈合率和总有效率治疗组分别为88．00％和98．00％,对照组为57．45％和93．62％,2组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。2组在用药期间,不良反应少,均有良好的耐受性。[结论]荆花胃康胶丸联合埃索美拉唑治疗PU可提高溃疡的愈合率和总有效率,缩短溃疡的愈合时间。     

康复新液联合兰索拉唑治疗非甾体抗炎药相关性溃疡38例

[目的]探讨康复新联合兰索拉唑治疗非甾体抗炎药（NSIADs）相关性溃疡的疗效。[方法]将经胃镜确诊的76例NSAIDs相关性溃疡患者,随机分为2组,治疗组38例,应用康复新10 ml,3次/d,兰索拉唑30 mg,1次/d;对照组38例,应用兰索拉唑30 mg,1次/d,疗程均为4周。疗程结束后,记录症状转归,胃镜复查评估溃疡愈合情况。[结果]2组临床症状改善情况比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。溃疡的愈合率和总有效率治疗组为94.7%和97.4%,对照组为78.9%和84.2%,2组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。[结论]康复新联合兰索拉唑治疗NSIADs相关性溃疡可提高溃疡的愈合率和总有效率。     

康复新液联合奥美拉唑治疗非甾体类抗炎药相关性溃疡50例

[目的]观察康复新液联合奥美拉唑治疗非甾体类抗炎药物(NSAID)相关性溃疡的疗效。[方法]对因腹痛伴呕血或黑便入院(除外消化道大出血),经胃镜诊断的99例NSAID相关性消化性溃疡患者,随机分为2组,治疗组50例给予口服康复新液10 ml/次,3次/d,联合奥美拉唑40 mg 2次/d静脉滴注(静滴)治疗;对照组49例选用奥美拉唑40 mg,2次/d静滴,出血停止改口服奥美拉唑20 mg 2次/d。证实幽门螺杆菌(Hp)感染者均加用阿莫西林1.0 g、克拉霉素0.5 g 2次/d,疗程10 d。[结果]治疗组总有效率为94.0%,对照组为69.4%(P0.05);胃镜疗效总有效率为96.0%,高于对照组的88.8%(P0.05);Hp根除率为89.19%,与对照组的87.5%无明显差异。[结论]康复新液联合奥美拉唑治疗NSAID相关性溃疡疗效确切,不良反应少。     

康复新液和埃索美拉唑对CEG患者的治疗效果及炎性因子的影响

[目的]探讨康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗慢性糜烂性胃炎(CEG)的效果及对患者血清炎症因子水平的影响。[方法]选取我院消化内科收治的CEG患者60例(2013年1月~2016年1月)进行回顾性分析,其中观察组30例(康复新液联合埃索美拉唑结合基础治疗)、对照组(果胶铋联合埃索美拉唑结合基础治疗)30例,疗程4周。[结果]观察组痊愈76.67%、显效20.00%、有效3.33%,对照组50.00%、显效36.67%、有效10.00%、无效3.33%,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗前,观察组和对照组的血清表皮生长因子、IL-6、TNF-α、GAS、MTL检测水平差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后,观察组血清表皮生长因子、IL-6、TNF-α、检测水平低于对照组(P0.05),观察组的血清GAS、MTL水平高于对照组(P0.05);治疗后,观察组Hp转阴率68.75%与对照组的57.14%比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]康复新液联合埃索美拉唑治疗CEG效果较好,能显著的减轻患者的炎症反应。     

埃索美拉唑治疗高危老年溃疡性上消化道出血的研究

目的观察大剂量与常规剂量埃索美拉唑治疗高危老年溃疡性上消化道出血的有效性。方法以2010年6月至2013年8月在我院老年医学科住院的96例溃疡性上消化道出血的高危（Rockall评分〉5分）老年患者为研究对象,将其随机分为治疗组和对照组,2组患者均在内镜下成功的止血,2组患者的一般治疗方案相同,治疗组采用1次静滴埃索美拉唑80 mg后（30 min）,接着以8 mg/h的速度持续静脉泵入埃索美拉唑,71.5 h后改为口服埃索美拉唑40 mg（1次/d）,持续观察至第30天;对照组静滴埃索美拉唑80 mg（1次/d）,3 d后改为口服埃索美拉唑40 mg（1次/d）,持续观察至第30天,观察2组的再出血率、死亡率、平均住院日及平均住院费用。结果与对照组相比,治疗组的再出血率、死亡率、平均住院日及平均住院费用均有明显的降低（P均〈0.05）。结论对高危的老年溃疡性上消化道出血患者而言,静脉大剂量使用埃索美拉唑是有效、合理的。     

埃索美拉唑联合莫沙比利治疗吻合口溃疡的临床研究

目的 探讨埃索美拉唑联合莫沙比利、克拉霉素、阿莫西林治疗幽门螺杆菌(Hp)相关吻合口溃疡的效果.方法 将94例患者随机分为两组:治疗组48例,对照组46例.治疗组采用埃索美拉唑40mg每日1次,早晨空腹服用,莫沙比利5 mg每日3次,克拉霉素500 mg每日2次,阿莫西林1.0g每日2次,疗程1周;1周后继续口服埃索美...     

埃索美拉唑治疗老年胃食管反流相关性哮喘69例临床观察

目的 观察埃索美拉唑抗反流治疗对胃食管反流相关性哮喘的疗效.方法 69例胃食管反流相关性哮喘患者,在常规哮喘治疗基础上均给予每日1次每次埃索美拉唑40 mg+每日3次每次莫沙必利5 mg抗反流控制治疗8周,之后每日1次每次埃索美拉唑20 mg+每日临睡前莫沙必利5 mg维持治疗.按中华医学会呼吸病学分会哮喘组制定的支气管哮喘防治指南哮喘控制水平分级标准来观察疗效.随访2年.结果 哮喘完全控制39例、部分控制25例,有效率92.8%.完全停用哮喘治疗药物42例、用量减半18例、继续用药9例.随访2年,哮喘完全控制58例、偶有发作11例,但发作次数减少、程度减轻.结论 埃索美拉唑抗反流治疗胃食管反流相关性哮喘可明显改善患者症状,提高生活质量.     

埃索美拉唑联合莫沙比利治疗反流性食管炎的疗效评价

目的 探讨埃索美拉唑(ESO)联合莫沙比利治疗反流性食管炎的临床疗效.方法 将80例经内镜证实为反流性食管炎的病例随机分为治疗组40例,给予埃索美拉唑40 mg,每日1次;莫沙比利5 mg,每日3次口服.对照组40例,给予奥美拉唑20 mg,每日1次口服;莫沙比利5 mg,每日3次口服.疗程均为4、8周,分别在治疗第4...     

Healing of gastric ulcers with esomeprazole versus ranitidine in patients who continued to receive NSAID therapy: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare orally administered esomeprazole 40 mg once daily and 20 mg once daily with ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for the healing of gastric ulcers (GUs) during 8 wks in patients who continued to receive daily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial included patients who were receiving nonselective or cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective NSAIDs and had at least one GU >or=5 mm but no gastric or duodenal ulcer >25 mm in diameter at the baseline esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). After 4 and 8 wks of treatment, ulcer-healing status was confirmed by EGD. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each treatment group who had no GUs (GU healing rate) at week 8. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients were randomized to treatment. At week 8, GU healing rates with esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg were 91.5% (118/129; 95% CI, 86.7-96.3%) and 88.4% (122/138; 95% CI, 83.1-93.7%), respectively, and were significantly higher than the 74.2% rate (98/132; 95% CI, 66.8-81.7%) with ranitidine (p<0.01 for both comparisons). GU healing rates at 4 wks (78.3%[101/129] and 79.0%[109/138] in the esomeprazole 40- and 20-mg groups, respectively) were also significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the ranitidine group (66.7%[88/132]). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg once daily are effective and well-tolerated therapies compared with ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for healing GUs in patients who need to continue NSAID therapy.     

雷贝拉唑联合莫沙必利对老年人难治性胃食管反流病的疗效

目的探讨雷贝拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗难治性胃食管反流病（GERD）的作用。方法采用随机对照的方法,将32例老年难治性GERD患者分为雷贝拉唑组＋莫沙必利（LM）组和莫沙必利组（M）组。LM给予雷贝拉唑（波利特,卫材）10mg口服,2次,d和莫沙必利（新络纳片,康宏）5mg口服,3次,d;M组给予莫沙必利（新络纳片,康宏）5mg,口服,3次,d,两组疗程均为14d。实验前后均行阻抗一pH监测了解反流物性质和反流次数。结果经治疗后,LM组总有效率高于M组（62．5％vs25．O％,P=O．033）,2组患者总反流次数均减少（P〈O．001）。LM组弱酸反流与治疗前比较减少,差异有高度统计学意义（P〈0．001）,非酸反流的次数减少（P=0．002）;M组患者的弱酸反流和非酸反流次数经治疗后减少,差异有高度统计学意义（P〈0．001）,但是酸反流的次数却增多,差异同样有高度统计学意义（P〈0．001）。LM组和M组患者的液体反流、液气混合反流的次数与治疗前比较减少（P=0．016,P=0．002;P=0．045,P=0．001）,气体反流减少（P〈0．001）。结论联合应用雷贝拉唑和莫沙必利能改善难治性GERD患者的症状,效果优于单用莫沙必利。反流总次数和气体反流次数的减少可能在难治性GERD患者的症状改善中起一定的作用。     

The effect of mosapride on oesophageal motor function and acid reflux in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of the 5-HT4 agonist and 5-HT3 antagonist mosapride, as compared with cisapride, on oesophageal acid reflux variables and oesophageal motor function in patients with chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). METHOD: Forty-one patients with proven GORD were included in a double-blind, randomised, double-dummy, three-way crossover study. All patients received mosapride 60 mg twice daily, mosapride 30 mg three times daily, and cisapride 20 mg twice daily for seven days in a randomised order, separated by a washout period of at least five days. Twenty-three patients underwent four combined ambulatory 24-h motility and pH recordings within two weeks before the start of treatment and on day seven of each treatment period. The remaining 18 patients underwent three ambulatory 24-h pH recordings only, i.e. on treatment day seven of each treatment period. RESULTS: Mosapride had no significant effect on the total number of contractions in the oesophagus, or on the effectiveness, or possible effectiveness, of the propagations. Significant but numerically small effects on peristaltic durations and amplitudes were noted during both mosapride and cisapride treatment as compared with baseline values. The effect on acid reflux for both mosapride and cisapride was most pronounced for the duration of the longest reflux episode. The fraction of time with pH less than 4 was reduced by mosapride 30 mg three times daily in the supine position and by cisapride both totally and in the supine position. The number of reflux episodes was reduced significantly only by cisapride. Oesophageal clearance was reduced significantly by cisapride only in the supine position. CONCLUSION: Mosapride had small but statistically significant effects, comparable to those of cisapride, on acid reflux variables and oesophageal motor function in patients with GORD.     

Esomeprazole versus omeprazole for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection: results of a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: Esomeprazole has higher oral bioavailability and increased antimicrobial activity against Helicobacter pylori than omeprazole. GOALS: To compare 7 days esomeprazole with 7 days of omeprazole based triple therapies for the eradication of H. pylori, and to assess whether the administration of higher dose of esomeprazole leads to improved eradication rates. STUDY: One hundred and fifty-six dyspeptic patients with H. pylori received either: (1) 1-week treatment including esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg, both twice daily (EAC1 group, n = 52); (2) 1-week treatment of omeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg, all administered twice daily (OAC group, n = 52); or (3) 1-week treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg, all given twice daily (EAC2 group, n = 52). RESULTS: H. pylori was eradicated in 37 of 52 patients in the OAC group (Intension to treat [ITT] 71%), and in 42 patients in the EAC1 group (ITT 81%). High eradication rate was achieved by the EAC2 regimen (ITT; 96%), but more patients reported unwanted effects. CONCLUSION: Seven days of esomeprazole based triple therapy is a satisfactory eradication regimen for H. pylori infection. Higher doses of esomeprazole have excellent eradication rates, but they may lead to increased side effects.     

艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎疗效观察

目的观察艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎的效果。方法96例临床症状及内镜检查明确诊断为反流性食管炎的患者,随机分为艾普拉唑组49例、奥美拉唑组47例。艾普拉唑组口服艾普拉唑10mg,2次／d;奥美拉唑组VI服奥美拉唑20mg,2次／d;两组同时均加用莫沙必利5mg,3次／d餐前服,疗程4周。治疗过程中定期观察症状改善情况、检测基础胃酸分泌,疗程结束时内镜复查。结果在缓解症状、降低基础胃酸分泌、改善食管炎症等方面,艾普拉唑组优于奥美拉唑组（P〈0．05）。结论艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎,能有效持续降低胃酸分泌,减少食管酸反流,促进食管黏膜修复,缓解胃食管反流症状。     

胃食管反流病埃索美拉唑治疗长期随访研究

目的 研究埃索美拉唑长期维持或间歇治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)的疗效及安全性.方法 28例GERD患者先以每日2次每次20 mg埃索美拉唑为基础进行综合治疗2周,之后按治疗方式分为长期维持治疗组和间歇治疗组.维持治疗组患者为服用缓解症状所需最小剂量半年以上者.间歇治疗组患者每日1次口服埃索美拉唑20 mg维持至症状完全消失后停药,若症状复发则再以相同方案进行治疗.统计分析两组患者的用药剂量、复发情况及长期服用埃索美拉唑的不良反应.结果 13例患者需长期维持治疗(维持时间7～44个月),15例患者可通过间歇治疗达到症状缓解,均未见与埃索美拉唑相关的不良反应.13例长期维持治疗者中,缓解症状所需埃索美拉唑剂量7例为每日1次每次20 mg,5例为每日2次每次20 mg,1例为隔日1次每次20 mg.随访间歇治疗组患者10～57个月,发现服药时间越长,患者缓解时间越长,Pearson相关系数为0.447,差异有统计学意义(P=0.008).结论 GERD患者可通过埃索美拉唑长期维持治疗和间歇治疗两种方式缓解症状,且安全性较好.