论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过比较门冬胰岛素与人普通胰岛素在社区老年2型糖尿病胰岛素泵治疗中的疗效,筛选出一种有效治疗老年2型糖尿病的方法。方法:将100例行胰岛素泵强化治疗的社区老年2型糖尿病患者按照抽签方法随机地均分为对照组与观察组,各为50例。对照组给予人普通胰岛素治疗,观察组给予门冬胰岛素治疗。比较两组临床疗效、治疗达标时间、胰岛素剂量及安全性等。结果:(1)两组治疗前后FBG、2hPBG、HbAlC、空腹Ins、TG、CHO、LDL-C、全天胰岛素用量相比,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05,P<0.01),且两组治疗后上述指标相比,差异也均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);(2)两组治疗过程中未见严重低血糖事件发生(P>0.05);对照组达标时间要稍长于观察组,但两组无统计学差异(P>0.05);观察组胰岛素剂量显著小于对照组,两组相比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:社区老年2型糖尿病胰岛素泵治疗之中,输注门冬胰岛素较人普通胰岛素效果更佳,值得在临床上加以推广并应用。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of aspart insulin and human common insulin in the treatment of elderly type 2 diabetic insulin pump in the community, and to screen out an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes in the elderly. Methods: A total of 100 elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who underwent intensive insulin therapy were randomly divided into control group and observation group according to random sampling method. The control group was given normal insulin and the observation group was given insulin aspart. The clinical curative effect, treatment compliance time, insulin dosage and safety were compared between the two groups. Results: (1) The FBG, 2hPBG, HbAlC, fasting Ins, TG, CHO, LDL-C and insulin dosage in the two groups before and after treatment were significantly different (P <0.05, P <0.01) There was no significant difference between the two groups in the above indexes (P <0.05); (2) No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the two groups (P> 0.05); the control group had a slightly longer But there was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). The dosage of insulin in the observation group was significantly smaller than that of the control group. There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Among the elderly patients with type 2 diabetes insulin pump, insulin aspart aspiration is better than normal insulin, which is worth to be popularized and applied clinically.