首页|基于时机理论的护理干预在重症心力衰竭患者中的应用效果

基于时机理论的护理干预在重症心力衰竭患者中的应用效果

Application effect of nursing intervention based on timing theory on patients with severe heart failure

扫码查看
目的 探讨基于时机理论的护理干预在重症心力衰竭患者中的应用效果.方法 选择2021年6月至2023年6月河南省肿瘤医院重症医学科收治的110例重症心力衰竭患者为研究对象,按照随机数字表法将患者分为观察组和对照组,每组55例.2组患者均给予对症治疗,包括强心、利尿、扩血管(必要时)、循环支持和(或)通气支持等;对照组患者治疗期间实施常规护理,观察组患者治疗期间实施基于时机理论的护理干预,2组患者均干预至转出重症医学科.分别于干预前、干预72 h时、转出重症医学科时,应用超声心动图检测2组患者心功能指标,应用Memorial心力衰竭症状评估量表(MSAS-HF)评估2组患者临床症状,应用急性生理与慢性健康状况评分Ⅱ(APACHE Ⅱ)评估2组患者病情程度.记录2组患者干预期间的不良事件.结果 干预前2组患者左心室射血分数(LVEF)、左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).2组患者干预72 h时、转出重症医学科时LVEF均显著高于干预前,LVEDD均显著低于干预前(P<0.05).2组患者转出重症医学科时LVEF均显著高于干预72 h时,LVEDD均显著低于干预72 h时(P<0.05).干预72 h时,观察组患者LVEF显著高于对照组,LVEDD显著低于对照组(P<0.05).转出重症医学科时,2组患者LVEF、LVEDD比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).干预前,2组患者MSAS-HF、APACHE Ⅱ评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).2组患者干预72 h时、转出重症医学科时MSAS-HF评分、APACHE Ⅱ评分均显著低于干预前(P<0.05).2组患者转出重症医学科时MSAS-HF评分、APACHE Ⅱ评分均显著低于干预72 h时(P<0.05).干预72 h时,观察组患者MSAS-HF评分、APACHE Ⅱ评分显著低于对照组(P<0.05).转出重症医学科时,2组患者MSAS-HF评分、APACHE Ⅱ评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).观察组和对照组患者不良事件发生率分别为5.45%(3/55)、16.36%(9/55),观察组患者不良事件发生率显著低于对照组(P<0.05).结论 基于时机理论的护理干预应用于重症心力衰竭的护理中能显著改善患者心功能,减轻临床症状及病情程度,减少不良事件发生率.
Objective To explore the application effect of nursing intervention based on timing theory on patients with severe heart failure.Methods Totally 110 patients with severe heart failure admitted to the Department of Critical Care Medicine of Henan Cancer Hospital from June 2021 to June 2023 were selected as the research subjects.According to the random number table method,these patients were divided into observation group and control group,with 55 patients in each group.Patients in both groups were given symptomatic treatment,including cardiotonic and diuretic treatment,vasodilation(if necessary),circulatory support and/or ventilatory support.Patients in the control group received routine nursing during treatment,and patients in the observation group received nursing intervention based on timing theory during treatment.All interventions were performed until patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine.The cardiac function indexes of patients in the two groups were measured by using ultrasonic cardiograms before intervention,72 hours after intervention,and when the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine,respectively;the clinical symptoms of patients in the two groups were evaluated by the Memorial symptom assessment scale-heart failure(MSAS-HF),and the severity of the disease was evaluated by acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ(APACHE Ⅱ).The adverse events during the intervention in the two groups were recorded.Results There was no statistically significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF)and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter(LVEDD)of patients between the two groups before intervention(P>0.05).The LVEF of patients in both groups after 72 hours of intervention and when the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine was significantly higher than that before intervention,and the LVEDD was significantly lower than that before intervention(P<0.05).When the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine,the LVEF of patients in both groups was significantly higher lower than that after 72 hours of intervention,and the LVEDD was significantly lower than that after 72 hours of intervention(P<0.05).At 72 hours of intervention,the LVEF of patients in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the LVEDD was significantly lower than that in the control group(P<0.05).When the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine,there were no statistically significant difference in the LVEF and LVEDD of patients between the two groups(P>0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the MSAS-HF score and APACHE Ⅱ score of patients between the two groups before intervention(P>0.05).The MSAS-HF score and APACHE Ⅱ score of patients in both groups after 72 hours of intervention and when the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine were significantly lower than those before intervention(P<0.05).When the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine,the MSAS-HF score and APACHE Ⅱ score of patients in both groups were significantly lower than those after 72 hours of intervention(P<0.05).At 72 hours of intervention,the MSAS-HF score and APACHE Ⅱ score of patients in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group(P<0.05).When the patients were transferred out of the Department of Critical Care Medicine,there was no statistically significant difference in the MSAS-HF score and APACHEⅡ score of patients between the two groups(P>0.05).The incidence of adverse events in the observation group and control group was 5.45%(3/55)and 16.36%(9/55),respectively;the incidence of adverse events in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P<0.05).Conclusion The application of timing theory-based nursing intervention in patients with severe heart failure can significantly improve patients'cardiac function,reduce clinical symptoms and severity of the disease,and decrease the incidence of adverse events.

severe heart failuretiming theorynursing interventioncardiac function

尚晓辉、潘晓茹、江晓平、徐本玲

展开 >

郑州大学附属肿瘤医院/河南省肿瘤医院重症医学科,河南 郑州 450008

重症心力衰竭 时机理论 护理干预 心功能

2024

新乡医学院学报
新乡医学院

新乡医学院学报

CSTPCD
影响因子:0.999
ISSN:1004-7239
年,卷(期):2024.41(12)