连续性护理干预在老年进展期胃癌患者新辅助化疗联合肠内营养支持中的应用

摘要
图/表
参考文献(23)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (49 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探究连续性护理干预在进展期胃癌老年患者新辅助化疗联合肠内营养支持中的应用效果。方法选取2017年9月～2019年月9 在我院住院的90 例进展期胃癌老年患者，用随机数字表法将其分为干预组和对照组，每组各45 例。两组入院后均执行胃癌护理常规，干预组在此基础上实施连续性护理干预。比较两组的营养状况、化疗不良反应及生活质量。结果干预前，两组的各项营养指标比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；干预后干预组的营养指标[（清蛋白、前清蛋白、血常规淋巴细胞计数及体重指数（BMI）]高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。干预组干预前后的营养指标比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。对照组干预后清蛋白明显低于干预前，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。对照组干预后其他营养指标与干预前比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。干预组的恶心呕吐、肝肾功能异常程度轻于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组的腹泻、骨髓抑制程度比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。干预前两组的生活质量各维度评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；干预组干预后的躯体功能、角色功能、社会功能及总体健康状况评分高于干预前，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；干预组干预前后的情绪功能及认知功能评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。干预组干预后的恶心、呕吐、疼痛及腹泻评分低于干预前，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；干预组干预前后的疲劳、气短、失眠、食欲缺乏、便秘及经济困难评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。对照组干预后的角色功能评分高于干预前，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；对照组干预前后的躯体功能、情绪功能、认知功能、社会功能及总体健康状况评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。对照组干预前后的疲乏、恶心、呕吐、疼痛、气短、失眠、食欲缺乏、便秘、腹泻及经济困难评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。实施连续性护理干预后，干预组的躯体功能、角色功能、认知功能、情绪功能及社会功能5 个功能领域子量表及总体健康状况评分高于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。干预后干预组的疲劳、恶心及呕吐、疼痛及气短、失眠、食欲缺乏、便秘、腹泻、经济困难评分低于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论连续性护理干预可有效提高进展期胃癌老年患者的营养状况，降低新辅助化疗的不良发应，改善患者生活质量，值得推广。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	匡雪春
	佘桂娥
	李雪冰
	石艳辉
	杨知友

关键词 ：连续性护理, 胃癌, 化疗, 肠内营养, 生活质量

Abstract：Objective To explore the effect of continuous nursing intervention in neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with enteral nutrition support in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods A total of 90 elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer who were hospitalized in our hospital from September 2017 to September 2019 were selected. The patients were divided into intervention group and control group using random number table method, 45 cases in each group. Patients in both groups received conventional gastric cancer nursing after admission, and in the intervention group, continuous nursing intervention was added. The nutritional status, adverse reactions of chemotherapy and quality of life （QOL） of the two groups were compared. Results Before the intervention, there were no statistical differences in nutritional indicators between the two groups （P＞0.05）. After the intervention, the nutritional indicators including albumin, prealbumin, blood lymphocyte count and body mass index （BMI） of the intervention group were higher than those of the control group,and the differences were statistically significant （P＜0.05）.In the intervention group,there were no significant differences in nutritional indicators before and after the intervention （P＞0.05）. In the control group, the prealbumin after the intervention was much lower than that before the intervention （P＜0.05）. In the control group, for other indicators, there were no significant differences between post-intervention and prior intervention （P＞0.05）. The degree of nausea, vomiting, liver and kidney function abnormalities in the intervention group were greatly milder compared with those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant （P＜0.05）. There was no significant difference in the degree of diarrhea and bone marrow suppression between the two groups （P＞0.05）.Before intervention, there was no significant difference in each dimension of the QOL scores between the two groups（P＞0.05）. In the intervention group, the scores of physical function, role function, social function, and overall health status after the intervention were higher than those before the intervention, with statistical differences （P＜0.05）. In the intervention group, emotional function and cognitive function scores before and after the intervention did not display statistical significance （P＞0.05）. In the intervention group, the scores of nausea, vomiting, pain and diarrhea after the intervention were all lower than those before the intervention （P＜0.05）. In the intervention group, the scores of fatigue,shortness of breath, insomnia, lack of appetite, constipation and financial difficulties before and after intervention did not differ statistically （P＞0.05）. In the control group, the role function score after the intervention was higher than that before the intervention, and the difference was statistically significant （P＜0.05）. In the control group, there were no statistical differences in the scores of physical function, emotional function, cognitive function, social function, or overall health before and after the intervention （P＞0.05）. In the control group, the scores of fatigue, nausea, vomiting,pain, shortness of breath, insomnia, lack of appetite, constipation, diarrhea and financial difficulties before and after the intervention were not statistically different （P＞0.05）. After the implementation of continuous nursing intervention, the five functional aspects of physical function, role function, cognitive function, emotional function and social function of the intervention group and the overall health score in the intervention group were all higher than those of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant （P＜0.05）. After the intervention, the scores of fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain and shortness of breath, insomnia, lack of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties in the intervention group were lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant（P＜0.05）. Conclusion Continuous nursing intervention can effectively improve the nutritional status of elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer, reduce the adverse reactions of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and ameliorate patient′s QOL,which is worthy of further exploration and promotion.

Key words： Continuous nursing Gastric cancer Chemotherapy Enteral nutrition Quality of life

基金资助:湖南省保健专项资金科研课题（B2017-01）

引用本文:

匡雪春；佘桂娥；李雪冰；石艳辉；杨知友. 连续性护理干预在老年进展期胃癌患者新辅助化疗联合肠内营养支持中的应用[J]. 中国当代医药, 2020, 27(28): 202-207.
KUANG Xue-chun； SHE Gui-e； LI Xue-bing； SHI Yan-hui； YANG Zhi-you. Application of continuous nursing intervention in neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with enteral nutrition support in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. 中国当代医药, 2020, 27(28): 202-207.

链接本文:

https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2020/V27/I28/202

[1]	郑荣寿，孙可欣，张思维，等.2015年中国恶性肿瘤流行情况分析[J].中华肿瘤杂志，2019，41（1）：19-28.
[2]	于洋，刘琪，姜建武，等.进展期胃癌行SOX 方案新辅助化疗临床观察[J].肿瘤基础与临床，2019，32（1）：51-54.
[3]	岳彩玲，张晓玲，刘颖，等.综合性护理措施对胃癌患者临床疗效和负性情绪及生活质量的影响[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复，2019，26（10）：1270-1273.
[4]	王瑞玲，江志伟，杨洋，等.营养支持联合新辅助化疗在进展期胃癌病人中的应用[J].肠外与肠内营养，2013，20（5）：263-266.
[5]	Kosuga T，Konishi T，Kubota T，et al.Value of Prognostic Nutritional Index as a Predictor of Lymph Node Metastasis in Gastric Cancer[J].Anticancer Res，2019，39（12）：6843-6849.
[6]	陈荣斌，李荣，叶汝兴，等.HS-mGPS 评分对进展期胃癌患者化疗效果与生存状况的预测价值[J].贵州医科大学学报，2019，44（5）：591-596.
[7]	陈广龙，万相斌，杜记涛，等.奥沙利铂联合替吉奥应用于进展期胃癌新辅助化疗的疗效及预后分析[J].实用癌症杂志，2019，34（11）：1801-1804.
[8]	Gu L，Chen B，Shen Z，et al.The relationship between the number of examined lymph nodes and the efficacy of chemotherapy for gastric cancer[J].Surg Today，2020，50（6）：585-596.
[9]	Forest H，Byrne I，Falls CE，et al.HOSPITAL REFERRAL of patients for continuity of nursing care[J].Am J Nurs，1947，47（11）：761-764.
[10]	Hasanpoor E，Siraneh BY，Janati A，et al.Nursing Managers′ Perspectives on the Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Evidence-Based Management[J].Worldviews Evid Based Nurs，2019，16（4）：255-262.
[11]	Ahmed AH，Sands LP.Effect of pre-and postdischarge interventions on breastfeeding outcomes and weight gain among premature infants[J].J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs，2010，39（1）：53-63.
[12]	李林娟，汪秀云，牟倩倩，等.基于互联网的营养支持小组对胃癌化疗病人营养状态的干预效果研究[J].安徽医药，2019，23（10）：1983-1987.
[13]	韩萍，胡婷婷，严明珠，等.基于PG-SGA 的个性化饮食指导在接受新辅助化疗的局部进展期胃癌患者中的应用价值[J].河南医学研究，2018，27（21）：3992-3994.
[14]	万崇华，陈明清，张灿珍，等.癌症患者生命质量测定量表EORTC QLQ-C30 中文版评介[J].实用肿瘤杂志，2005，20（4）：353-355.
[15]	温海斌，李孔才，肖景亮，等.新辅助化疗及联合脏器切除术治疗局部进展期胃癌疗效分析[J].吉林医学，2017，38（6）：1029-1031.
[16]	李磊，胡晓峰，减子慧，等.新辅助化疗联合营养支持在治疗胃癌伴幽门梗阻老年患者中的疗效观察[J].实用癌症杂志，2015，30（2）：228-231.
[17]	Uijen A A，Schers HJ，Schellevis FG，et al.How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts[J].Fam Pract，2012，29（3）：264-271.
[18]	张占东，杨铁军，孔烨，等.新辅助化疗结合肠内营养制剂支持对胃癌患者术前的影响研究[J].中国医学前沿杂志（电子版），2014，6（10）：23-25.
[19]	Naylor MD，Brooten DA，Campbell RL，et al.Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure：a randomized，controlled trial[J].J Am Geriatr Soc，2004，52（5）：675-684.
[20]	谢竹音，郑志超.协同护理对进展期胃癌新辅助化疗患者营养水平的影响[J].护士进修杂志，2019，34（9）：786-790.
[21]	张艳玲，张素，杨丰华.延续护理对老年晚期胃癌病人化疗反应及生活质量的影响[J].全科护理，2017，15（11）：1397-1398.
[22]	曾淑超，李文红，李亚萍.连续护理对胃癌患者围化疗期的干预效果分析[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复，2013，20（11）：1297-1299.
[23]	许芳，陶震华.系统性护理干预对晚期胃癌患者化疗后营养状况和生活质量的影响[J].国际护理学杂志，2019，38（12）：1837-1840.