本文選題：清肺承氣湯 + 重癥肺炎�。� 參考：《中國實驗方劑學雜志》2016年08期

【摘要】：目的:觀察清肺承氣湯輔助治療重癥肺炎痰熱壅肺證的臨床療效以及對血清晚期糖基化終末產(chǎn)物受體(RAGE),腫瘤壞死因子-α(TNF-α)和白細胞介素-6(IL-6)水平的影響。方法:本組研究共96例,均為ICU病房收治重癥肺炎患者,參照數(shù)字表法隨機分為治療組和對照組各48例;對照組采取常規(guī)治療,在早期抗感染采取利奈唑胺注射液,靜脈滴注治療,1次/12 h,600 mg/次;治療組在對照組治療的基礎上給予清肺承氣湯內(nèi)服,1劑/d,常規(guī)水煎煮2次。兩組患者療程均為2周。比較兩組治療前后中醫(yī)主證積分、動脈血氣變化以及急性生理和慢性健康狀況評分Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ);評價兩組治療后的臨床效果;檢測兩組治療前后血清RAGE,TNF-α和IL-6水平。結(jié)果:治療組治療后中醫(yī)主證積分發(fā)熱、咳嗽、痰壅和氣促分均明顯低于對照組(P0.01);治療組總有效率為95.83%,對照組為79.17%,治療組優(yōu)于對照組(P0.05);治療組治療后二氧化碳分壓(Pa CO2)和APACHEⅡ均明顯低于對照組,而血氧飽和度(Sa O2)和血氧分壓(Pa O2)明顯高于對照組(P0.01);治療后治療組RAGE,TNF-α和IL-6水平均明顯低于對照組,比較差異均有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.01)。結(jié)論:在西醫(yī)臨床治療的基礎上,加用清肺承氣湯輔助治療重癥肺炎痰熱壅肺證可明顯改善患者中醫(yī)主證積分,APACHEⅡ評分以及動脈血氣,提高臨床治療效果,降低血清RAGE,TNF-α和IL-6水平可能是其發(fā)揮治療作用的機制之一。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical efficacy of Qingfei Chengqi decoction in treating severe pneumonia with phlegm heat obstruction of lung syndrome and its effect on the levels of serum advanced glycation end product receptor (RAGEG), tumor necrosis factor- 偽 (TNF- 偽) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Methods: 96 patients with severe pneumonia in ICU ward were randomly divided into treatment group (n = 48) and control group (n = 48). The treatment group was given Qingfei Chengqi decoction on the basis of the treatment of control group for 1 / 1 / d, and the routine water decoction was boiled twice on the basis of the treatment of the control group. The course of treatment was 2 weeks. The scores of main syndromes, arterial blood gas, acute physiology and chronic health were compared between the two groups before and after treatment. The clinical effects of the two groups were evaluated, and the serum levels of RAGEN TNF- 偽 and IL-6 were measured before and after treatment. Results: in the treatment group, the symptoms of fever and cough were accumulated after treatment. The scores of phlegm obstruction and shortness of breath were significantly lower than those of the control group (P 0.01), the total effective rate of the treatment group was 95.83 and the control group was 79.17, the treatment group was superior to the control group (P 0.05), the treatment group was significantly lower than the control group in terms of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Paco _ 2) and APACHE 鈪，

本文編號：1910069