论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨中西医结合治疗糖尿病肾病的临床应用效果。方法选取2013年11月—2014年12月收治的糖尿病肾病患者96例作为研究对象,随机分为对照组43例和观察组53例。对照组采用西医常规治疗,观察组在对照组的基础上采用中医辨证治疗,两组患者均治疗3个月。观察两组患者治疗前后临床症状、血糖、UAER、Ccr及临床疗效。计数资料采用χ~2检验,计量资料比较采用t检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果治疗后,观察组与对照组腰痛腰酸、肢体浮肿、口干咽燥、神疲乏力评分分别为(1.14±0.69)、(1.54±0.67)、(1.07±0.53)、(1.51±0.78)、(0.53±0.39)、(0.78±0.45)、(1.05±0.76)、(1.48±0.72)分,与治疗前的(2.08±0.62)、(2.13±0.59)、(1.82±0.73)、(1.86±0.64)、(1.28±0.29)、(1.25±0.33)、(2.02±0.52)、(1.93±0.54)分比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。两组治疗后各症状评分比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后,观察组与对照组空腹血糖、餐后血糖、UAER、Ccr分别为(6.87±2.19)、(7.15±2.53)、(8.23±1.94)、(8.51±1.86)mmol/L、(138.83±26.85)、(175.72±23.45)μg/min、(93.37±7.56)、(89.43±8.62)ml/min,与治疗前的(8.07±2.67)、(8.34±2.47)、(11.26±2.76)、(10.68±2.54)mmol/L、(209.25±33.27)、(213.15±30.73)μg/min、(85.06±8.72)、(84.86±9.73)ml/min比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。两组治疗后UAER、Ccr水平比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。观察组总有效率为90.56%,明显高于对照组的79.07%,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论中西医结合治疗糖尿病肾病不仅能够提高患者生活质量和取得患者较高的满意度,而且具有临床效果好、降糖作用平稳、不良反应小等优点,值得临床推广使用。
Objective To explore the clinical application of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. Methods Ninety-six patients with diabetic nephropathy who were treated in our hospital from November 2013 to December 2014 were randomly divided into control group (n = 43) and observation group (n = 53). The control group was treated with conventional Western medicine. The observation group was treated with TCM based on the control group, and both groups were treated for 3 months. The clinical symptoms, blood glucose, UAER, Ccr and clinical efficacy of the two groups before and after treatment were observed. Counting data using χ ~ 2 test, measurement data were compared using t test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. Results After treatment, the scores of lumbago, body edema, dry mouth, dryness, and fatigue of the spine in the observation group and the control group were (1.14 ± 0.69), (1.54 ± 0.67), (1.07 ± 0.53) and (1.51 ± 0.78) (2.08 ± 0.62), (2.13 ± 0.59), (1.82 ± 0.73), (1.86 ± 0.73), (1.83 ± 0.39), (1.05 ± 0.76) 0.64, 1.28 ± 0.29, 1.25 ± 0.33, 2.02 ± 0.52 and 1.93 ± 0.54, respectively (all P <0.05). After treatment, the score of each symptom was significantly different (all P <0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, UAER and Ccr were (6.87 ± 2.19), (7.15 ± 2.53), (8.23 ± 1.94), (8.51 ± 1.86) mmol / L and (138.83 ± (P <0.05), and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05) .Conclusion: Compared with pretreatment (26.85), 175.72 ± 23.45 μg / min, 93.37 ± 7.56 and 89.43 ± 8.62 ml / 10.68 ± 2.54 mmol / L, 209.25 ± 33.27, 213.15 ± 30.73 μg / min, 85.06 ± 8.72 and 84.86 ± 9.73 ml / min, respectively (all P <0.05) . UAER and Ccr levels after treatment in both groups were significantly different (all P <0.05). The total effective rate in observation group was 90.56%, which was significantly higher than that in control group (79.07%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Integrative treatment of diabetic nephropathy can not only improve the quality of life of patients and obtain patients with high satisfaction, but also has good clinical effects, hypoglycemic effect is stable, the advantages of small adverse reactions, worthy of clinical promotion and use.