全麻复合硬膜外在高龄患者腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中的应用

目的:研究全麻复合硬膜外在高龄患者腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中的应用效果。方法:选择60岁以上择期行腹腔镜直肠癌根治术患者60例,随机分为G组和GA组,每组各30例。G组患者为单纯全麻组,GA组患者为硬膜外复合全麻组。GA组患者在诱导前取L1~2硬膜外穿刺置管,予0.5%罗哌卡因5 ml,术中每小时追加5~7 ml。两组患者诱导方法相同:即,咪哒唑仑0.04 mg/kg、舒芬太尼0.3~0.4μg/kg、顺阿曲库铵0.15~0.20 mg/kg、依托咪酯0.2~0.3 mg/kg。监测并记录患者血压(BP),心率(HR),心电图(ECG),术中全麻药用量及术后患者苏醒情况。结果:GA组患者气腹后、拔管前BP、HR明显低于G组(P<0.05),且全麻药用量明显低于G组(P<0.05)。结论:全麻复合硬膜外应用于老年腹腔镜直肠癌手术较单纯全麻用药量减少,术中循环更加稳定,是腹腔镜直肠癌根治术比较安全可行的麻醉方法。     

新型冠状病毒肺炎出院患者生活质量及影响因素研究

目的:了解新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者出院后的生活质量及其影响因素,为优化早期干预方案,预防社区生活受限,制定相应社区康复措施提供依据。方法:选择2020年3—4月在武汉华润武钢总医院治愈出院的COVID-19患者57例,于2020年4—5月通过"问卷星"平台采用简明健康状况调查量表(SF-12V2)调查患者的生活质量;采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)调查患者的焦虑状态;采用抑郁自评量表(SDS)调查患者的抑郁状态;采用呼吸困难指数量表(mMRC)调查患者的呼吸困难程度。比较不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量的差异;分析患者生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性及其相关的影响因素。结果:共发放57份调查问卷,剔除重复及无效问卷3份,获得有效问卷54份,问卷有效率达94.74%。(1)COVID-19出院后患者生活质量情况:生理总评分和心理总评分分别为(37.02±12.32)分、(38.46±14.42)分;呼吸困难等级0~3级的分别为3例(5.56%)、45例(83.33%)、5例(9.26%)、1例(1.85%);有19例(35.19%)存在焦虑情绪(SAS≥50分)和抑郁情绪(SDS≥53分)。(2)不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量比较:不同疾病分型的患者在生理总评分方面差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(3)生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性分析:Pearson相关分析结果显示,SF-12V2生理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.34,P=0.011)和呼吸困难程度(r=-0.39,P=0.003)之间存在负相关性,SF-12V2心理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.46,P=0.001)和抑郁程度(r=-0.40,P=0.002)之间存在负相关性。(4)COVID-19患者生活质量的影响因素分析:多元线性回归分析显示,性别(β=8.27)、抑郁程度(β=-0.34)和疾病分型(β=-11.68)是患者SF-12V2生理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05);焦虑程度(β=-0.62)是患者SF-12V2心理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05)。结论:COVID-19出院患者存在呼吸困难、焦虑抑郁情绪和生活质量下降的问题;性别、疾病分型、抑郁程度和焦虑程度是COVID-19患者生活质量下降的重要因素。COVID-19患者(特别是女性患者和重型患者)出院后要尽早进行抑郁症和焦虑症的筛查和干预,减少患者负性情绪,鼓励患者适当参与康复训练,提高呼吸功能,从而促进生活质量提高。     

常用快速手消毒剂对两种肠道病毒的灭活效果研究

目的了解常用快速手消毒剂对两种肠道病毒PV-I、Echo11的灭活效果,以指导手卫生的方式。方法采用悬液定量灭活试验方法,检测常用的13种快速手消毒剂对脊髓灰质炎病毒PV-I、肠道病毒Echo11病毒作用1 min的灭活效果。结果快速手消毒剂A(有效氯370 mg/L)和B(乙醇75%～85%、三氯羟基二苯醚0. 4%～0.5%)作用1 min,对PV-I和Echo11的灭活对数值均≥4. 00;快速手消毒剂C(聚六亚甲基双胍0. 45%～0. 55%、乙醇63%～77%)作用1 min,只对Echo11的灭活对数值≥4.00;其余快速手消毒剂对PV-I和Echo11的灭活对数值均<4.00。结论 PV-I作为消毒剂病毒灭活实验中的指示毒株,对快速手消毒剂的抗力比Echo11强。检测的13种消毒剂中,对PV-I、Echo11有灭活作用的快速手消毒剂占比分别为15.4%和23.1%,在临床中过度依赖快速手消毒剂阻断肠道病毒通过手的传播是有风险的,在流行季节或明确有肠道病毒污染的情况下,应选择皂液流动水洗手作为手卫生的方式。     

探究呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果观察

目的观察呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果。方法 2016年11月至2017年2月,在我院的呼吸内科选取了80例呼吸系统疾病重症患者进行研究。为了实验结果的明显性,将实验分成了两组。将对照组的40例患者不给予护理措施,只给予治疗和用药,护理措施全凭患者自己的计划去实行。对实验组的40例患者制定护理计划,并且实行相应的护理措施,为患者做出院指导和防护措施,从各个方面进行护理,阻止病情的进一步发展。结果实验组的40例患者的疾病控制情况要比对照组的40例患者效果要好,结果具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论呼吸系统的疾病,一般分为病原菌的侵入和自身的炎症,无论是哪一种,重症患者都会发生呼吸困难、咳嗽、咳痰等症状。如果护理措施护理得当,患者会缓解呼吸困难导致的缺氧状态,咳嗽症状也会随着痰液的减少而消失。如果没有得当的护理措施,病情会越来越重,甚至会侵害到其他脏器,导致各脏器的衰竭而死亡。     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.