综合性护理干预对急性心肌梗死患者预后的影响

目的探讨综合性护理十预对急性心肌梗死患者预后的影响。方法将2012年1月～2013年1月期间我院急诊科收治的60例急性心肌梗死作为观察对象．根据随机数字表法将上述入选病例随机分为对照组和观察组各30例，其中对照组行常规随机对症护理．观察组实施综合性的护理干预措施。比较两组急性心肌梗死患者干预后的LVEF、HAMA评分、SAS评分及疗效。结果观察组和对照组入院时LVEF比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。干预1周后，观察组和对照组的LVEF分别较入院时提高，且观察组较对照组LVEF升高更显著，组间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。观察组和对照组患者入院时的HAMA评分、SAS评分分别比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。干预1周后，观察组和对照组的HAMA、SAS评分分别较入院时明显降低．且观察组较对照组HAMA评分、SAS评分降低更显著，组间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。干预后1周对两组的疗效进行比较．观察组的有效率达93.3％，对照组的有效率达70．0％，两组疗效比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论对急性心肌梗死患者实施综合性护理干预后可以改善患者的心功能，改善患者的焦虑情绪，提高治疗效果，改善患者的预后，值得推广和应用。

The effect of comprehensive nursing intervention on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Objective To investigate the comprehensive nursing intervention for acute myocardial infarction prognosis. Methods From January 2012 to January 2013 in our hospital, 60 patients with acute myocardial infarction according to the random number table were randomly divided into control group and observation group of 30 cases, was a doped control group randomized underwent routine symptomatic care, observation group implementing comprehensive care interventions, the intervention of LVEF, HAMA score, SAS score and efficacy were compared. Results The admission LVEF of study group and the control group, no statistically significant difference （P 〉 0.05）. 1 week after intervention, the observation group and control group, respectively, compared with admission LVEF improved, and the observation group improved more sigmifincant than the control group, LVEF increased more significantly, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05）. Observation group and control group of patients on admission HAMA score, SAS scores were compared, and the difference was not statistically significant （P 〉 0.05）. After intervention 1 week, the observation group and control group HAMA, SAS scores were significantly lower than the time of admission, and the observation group lowered than in the control group, LVEF decreased more significantly, the difference was statistically significant between two groups （P 〈 0.05）. One week after the intervention of the two groups to compare the efficacy of the observation group, the effective rate was 93.3%, the effective rate was 70.0% in the control group, the difference was statistically significant between two groups （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion Patients with acute myocardial infarction after implementation of a comprehensive nursing intervention can improve cardiac function, improve the patientJs anxiety, improve treatment and improve patient outcomes, should be promoted and applied.