本文選題：終末期腎病 + 生存質(zhì)量�。� 參考：《昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的：比較血液透析、腹膜透析及腎移植對(duì)終末期腎病患者生存質(zhì)量的影響,并探討其相關(guān)影響因素。 方法：選擇2.011年3月-2013年7月在昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)第一附屬醫(yī)院、昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院及云南省腎臟病醫(yī)院行維持性血液透析、持續(xù)不臥床腹膜透析或腎移植3個(gè)月以上、年滿(mǎn)18歲的終末期腎病患者354例為研究對(duì)象,其中血液透析組患者160例,腹膜透析組患者52例,腎移植組患者142例,采用腎病生存質(zhì)量評(píng)估簡(jiǎn)表(KDQ0L—SFTM1.2量表)進(jìn)行問(wèn)卷調(diào)查,評(píng)估其生存質(zhì)量,同時(shí)收集每個(gè)患者的臨床及實(shí)驗(yàn)室資料。 結(jié)果：1.三組患者生存質(zhì)量的比較 ①腎移植組在SF-36總評(píng)分及其8個(gè)分支領(lǐng)域評(píng)分、KDTA總評(píng)分及其分支領(lǐng)域癥狀(SPL)、腎病的影響(EKD)、腎病帶來(lái)的負(fù)擔(dān)(BKD)、性功能(SexF)的評(píng)分均高于血液透析組和腹膜透析組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)；此外,腎移植組尚在工作狀況(WS)領(lǐng)域得分高于血液透析組,在睡眠(Sleep)、社會(huì)支持(Sos)領(lǐng)域得分高于腹膜透析組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)； ②血液透析組在睡眠(Sleep)、社會(huì)支持(Sos)領(lǐng)域評(píng)分高于腹膜透析組,而在精力狀況(Energ)、腎病的影響(EKD)、工作狀況(WS)領(lǐng)域評(píng)分低于腹膜透析組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)； ③腎移植組在SF-36的生理健康及心理健康總評(píng)分均高于血液透析組和腹膜透析組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05),而血液透析組和腹膜透析組在上述兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域的評(píng)分差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。2.社會(huì)人口學(xué)指標(biāo)與生存質(zhì)量 ①一般資料比較：三組患者的性別、年齡段、民族、婚姻狀況、文化程度的構(gòu)成差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05); ②社會(huì)人口學(xué)資料與SF-36總評(píng)分：血液透析組：SF-36總評(píng)分在不同年齡段內(nèi)差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)；腹膜透析組：SF-36總評(píng)分在不同性別、年齡段、民族、婚姻狀況、文化程度間差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)；腎移植組：SF-36總評(píng)分在不同的年齡段、婚姻狀況間差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)； ③社會(huì)人口學(xué)資料與KDTA總評(píng)分：血液透析組和腹膜透析組的KDTA總評(píng)分在不同性別、年齡段、民族、婚姻狀況、文化程度間差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)；腎移植組的KDTA總評(píng)分在不同婚姻狀況、文化程度間差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)。 3.相關(guān)性分析 ①血液透析組的SF-36總評(píng)分及KDTA總評(píng)分、腹膜透析組的SF-36總評(píng)分均與年齡呈負(fù)相關(guān),而腎移植組的SF-36總評(píng)分與年齡呈正相關(guān)； ②三組患者的SF-36總評(píng)分均與血紅蛋白呈正相關(guān)； ③血液透析組和腎移植組的SF-36總評(píng)分及KDTA總評(píng)分、腹膜透析組的SF-36總評(píng)分均與血清白蛋白呈正相關(guān); ④血透組的SF-36總評(píng)分、腎移植組的SF-36總評(píng)分及KDTA總評(píng)分均與文化程度呈正相關(guān)； ⑤腎移植組的SF-36總評(píng)分及KDTA總評(píng)分均與血肌酐呈負(fù)相關(guān)。 結(jié)論：腎移植組在SF一36總評(píng)分及其各個(gè)分支領(lǐng)域評(píng)分、KDTA總評(píng)分及其多個(gè)分支領(lǐng)域評(píng)分均高于血液透析組及腹膜透析組,血液透析組在睡眠(Sleep)、社會(huì)支持(Sos)領(lǐng)域高于腹膜透析組,在精力狀況(Energ)、腎病的影響(EKD)工作狀況(WS)領(lǐng)域評(píng)分低于腹膜透析組,表明腎移植患者總體生存質(zhì)量?jī)?yōu)于血液透析及腹膜透析患者。三組患者的生存質(zhì)量與年齡、文化程度、血清白蛋白、血紅蛋白、血肌酐等因素有關(guān),臨床中注意監(jiān)測(cè)上述指標(biāo)有助于提高患者的生存質(zhì)量。
[Abstract]:Objective : To compare the effects of hemodialysis , peritoneal dialysis and renal transplantation on the quality of life of patients with end - stage renal disease .

Methods : From March to July 2013 , 354 patients with end - stage renal disease in Kunming Medical University , Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University and kidney disease hospital in Yunnan Province were selected as the subjects .

Results : 1 . Comparison of the quality of life of three groups of patients

The total score of SF - 36 and the score of 8 branches , the total score of KDTA and the symptom ( SPL ) , the effect of renal disease ( EKD ) , the burden of nephropathy ( BKD ) and sex function were higher than those in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis group ( p < 0.05 ) .
In addition , the score of kidney transplantation group in the field of work ( WS ) was higher than that in hemodialysis group . In the sleep ( Sleep ) and social support ( Sos ) field , the score was higher than that in peritoneal dialysis group ( p . 05 ) .


( 2 ) In the hemodialysis group , the score of sleep and social support ( Sos ) was higher than that in peritoneal dialysis group , while in the energy condition ( Energ ) , the effect of kidney disease ( EKD ) , the score of working condition ( WS ) was lower than that in peritoneal dialysis group , the difference was statistically significant ( p . 05 ) ;


( 3 ) The total score of SF - 36 was higher than that in hemodialysis group and peritoneal dialysis group ( p < 0.05 ) , but there was no statistical significance in the score difference between hemodialysis group and peritoneal dialysis group .

( 1 ) General data comparison : There was no significant difference in the composition of sex , age , nationality , marital status and degree of culture among the three groups ( p . 05 ) ;

( 2 ) Social demology data and SF - 36 total score : the total score of SF - 36 in hemodialysis group was statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) .
The total score of SF - 36 was no significant difference between different sex , age , nationality , marital status and cultural degree ( p . 05 ) .
The total score of SF - 36 was in different age groups , and the difference between marital status was significant ( p < 0.05 ) .


( 3 ) There was no significant difference between social demology data and KDTA total score : the total score of KDTA between hemodialysis group and peritoneal dialysis group in different sex , age group , nationality , marital status and culture degree ( p . 05 ) ;
The total score of KDTA in kidney transplantation group was statistically significant ( p . 05 ) .

3 . Correlation analysis

The total score of SF - 36 in hemodialysis group and total score of KDTA were negatively correlated with age , while SF - 36 in renal transplantation group was positively correlated with age .


The SF - 36 scores of three groups were positively correlated with hemoglobin ;


( 3 ) The total score of SF - 36 and total KDTA score of hemodialysis group and renal transplantation group were positively correlated with serum albumin .

( 4 ) The total score of SF - 36 and the total score of SF - 36 and total KDTA were positively correlated with the degree of culture .


The total score of SF - 36 and the total KDTA score of renal transplantation group were negatively correlated with serum creatinine .

Conclusion : The total score of SF - 36 and the scores of its branches , the total score of KDTA and the scores of its branches were higher than those in hemodialysis group and peritoneal dialysis group . In the field of sleep and social support ( Sos ) , the score of patients with renal transplantation was lower than that in peritoneal dialysis group . The quality of life of patients with renal transplantation was better than those in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis . The quality of life was related to age , degree of culture , serum albumin , hemoglobin , blood creatinine and other factors .
【學(xué)位授予單位】：昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R692.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周山;劉宏;余榮杰;趙洪雯;李斂;吳雄飛;;腎移植受體93例生存質(zhì)量調(diào)查研究[J];第三軍醫(yī)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年15期

2 王宗謙;盧新星;;終末期腎病患者抑郁程度與生存質(zhì)量各個(gè)維度之間的關(guān)系[J];吉林大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版);2013年03期

3 劉嘉欣;夏萍;;WHO生存質(zhì)量量表在我國(guó)患者中的應(yīng)用現(xiàn)狀[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2013年03期

4 邱壽珠;戴云飛;余茹;金玉蓮;;腎移植術(shù)后患者生活質(zhì)量的調(diào)查分析[J];護(hù)理與康復(fù);2006年06期

5 唐東興;;持續(xù)腹膜透析患者生存質(zhì)量的臨床分析[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版);2009年05期

6 苗薈;梁榮;;維持性血液透析患者生存情況臨床研究[J];河北醫(yī)學(xué);2013年11期

7 黃季萌;張慶;劉世霆;張金華;許軍;;影響腎移植患者自測(cè)健康相關(guān)因素的調(diào)查[J];實(shí)用預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué);2008年06期

8 董彬;張法榮;;維持性血液透析患者生存質(zhì)量影響因素調(diào)查分析[J];齊魯護(hù)理雜志;2013年19期

9 郭宏波;;腎移植與血液透析患者生活質(zhì)量對(duì)比[J];中國(guó)組織工程研究與臨床康復(fù);2008年31期

10 ;我國(guó)面臨快速增長(zhǎng)的終末期腎病治療負(fù)擔(dān)[J];中國(guó)血液凈化;2010年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1938888