结核与肺部疾病杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 1 ›› Issue (1): 34-38.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8493.2020.01.008

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

呼吸训练干预对慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者呼吸功能和生活质量的影响

刘思梅, 奚修凤, 李冰()   

  1. 277500 山东省枣庄市胸科医院呼吸科
  • 收稿日期:2020-03-19 出版日期:2020-06-30 发布日期:2020-07-07
  • 通信作者: 李冰 E-mail:sdwkyylb@126.com

Influence of respiratory training intervention on respiratory function and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

LIU Si-mei, XI Xiu-feng, LI Bing()   

  1. Department of Respiratory,Zaozhuang Municipal Chest Hospital,Shandong Province, Zaozhuang 277500,China
  • Received:2020-03-19 Online:2020-06-30 Published:2020-07-07
  • Contact: LI Bing E-mail:sdwkyylb@126.com

摘要:

目的 评价呼吸训练干预对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重住院患者肺功能、焦虑、抑郁负性情绪和呼吸困难症状的影响。方法 收集2019年6月至2019年12月因病情急性加重而住院的COPD患者82例,根据入组时序号的单双号进行分组,41例患者疾病稳定期在接受常规护理的基础上,接受呼吸训练干预,作为观察组;41例患者采用常规护理方法,作为对照组。剔除病情加重患者5例,实际完成77例,最终观察组患者为40例,对照组为37例。采用肺功能仪对两组患者的肺功能进行测量,采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)和抑郁自评量表(SDS)评估患者的负性情绪,采用自我评估测试问卷(CAT)评估患者症状,采用呼吸困难量表(mMRC)评估呼吸困难症状,采取随机试验的方法,对两组患者呼吸功能和生活质量进行测量和评估。结果 观察组患者干预后肺功能:第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)为(1.91±0.42)L、FEV1占预计值百分比[FEV1(%)]为(68.18±5.79)%、FEV1与用力肺活量比值(FEV1/FVC)为66.20±2.00;对照组FEV1为(1.59±0.31)L、FEV1(%)为(63.95±6.95)%、FEV1/FVC为(61.35±3.71)。两组比较,差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为3.86、2.91、7.06,P值均为0.000);观察组干预后SAS评分为(38.55±8.72)分,低于对照组的(44.68±8.62)分,差异有统计学意义(t=-3.10,P=0.000);观察组干预后SDS的评分为(38.85±6.26)分,低于对照组的(46.54±7.31)分,差异有统计学意义(t=-4.94,P=0.000);观察组干预后CAT评分为(23.88±4.30)分,低于对照组的(32.41±3.87)分,差异有统计学意义(t=-9.16,P=0.000);观察组干预后mMRC评分为(1.73±0.85)分,低于对照组的(2.49±0.93)分,差异有统计学意义(t=-3.74,P=0.000)。结论 呼吸训练干预对COPD急性加重住院患者实施后,可提高患者肺功能,降低焦虑、抑郁情绪,改善呼吸困难症状。

关键词: 肺疾病,慢性阻塞性, 呼吸锻炼, 呼吸功能试验, 干预性研究, 疗效比较研究

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the effect of respiratory training intervention on pulmonary function, anxiety, depression and other negative emotions, and symptom of dyspnea on hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods A total of 82 COPD patients who were hospitalized due to acute exacerbation of the disease from June 2019 to December 2019 were collected and grouped according to the single and double numbers of the enrollment time series. Concretely, 41 patients received respiratory training intervention based on usual care at stable stage as the observation group, and 41 patients were adopted the routine nursing methods as the control group. Five patients with aggravation were removed. Finally, 77 cases were actually completed, including 40 in the observation group and 37 in the control group. The lung function of patients in the two groups was measured using lung function instrument. The self-assessment scale for anxiety (SAS) and the self-assessment scale for depression (SDS) were used to evaluate the negative emotions of patients. The self-assessment test questionnaire (CAT) was used to evaluate the symptoms of patients. The dyspnea scale (mMRC) was used to evaluate the symptoms of dyspnea. The respiratory function and quality of life of patients in the two groups were measured and evaluated by means of randomized experiment. Results The lung function of patients in the observation group after intervention was as follows: the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was (1.91±0.42) L, the FEV1 accounted for the percentage of predicted value (FEV1(%)) was (68.16±5.79)%, and the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) was 66.20±2.00; the corresponding values in the control group were (1.59±0.31) L, (63.95±6.95)%, and 61.35±3.71, respectively, with the statistically significant differences between the two groups (t=3.86, 2.91, 7.06, respectively; all P=0.000). The SAS score of patients in the observation group after intervention was 38.55±8.72, which was lower than that in the control group (44.68±8.62), with the statistically significant difference (t=-3.10, P=0.000). The SDS score of patients in the observation group after intervention was 38.85±6.26, which was significantly lower than that of the control group (46.54±7.31), with the statistically significant difference (t=-4.94, P=0.000). The CAT score of patients in the observation group after intervention was 23.88±4.30, which was significantly lower than that of the control group (32.41±3.87), with the statistically significant difference (t=-9.16, P=0.000). The mMRC score of patients in the observation group after intervention was 1.73±0.85, which was significantly lower than that of the control group (2.49±0.93), with the statistically significant difference (t=-3.74, P=0.000). Conclusion The implementation of respiratory training intervention for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD can improve the lung function, reduce anxiety and depression, and improve the symptoms of dyspnea.

Key words: Pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive, Breathing exercises, Respiratory function tests, Intervention studies, Comparative effectiveness research