摘要
目的:研究由计算机技术控制,将心理语言和胃电起搏同步输出协同强化治疗方法(coordinated treatment of psychological language and gastric pacing,CTPG)治疗功能性消化不良的临床疗效.方法:根据罗马Ⅲ标准选取60例功能性消化不良患者,随机分为2组:CTPG组(心理语言结合胃电起搏强化治疗组,n=30)和对照组(单纯胃电起搏治疗组,n=30),两组患者均置于安静的环境中,CTPG组采用心理语言与胃电起搏同步输出,语音贯穿治疗并引导胃电起搏电流输出的治疗方法,对照组采用单纯胃电起搏治疗,两组每人均治疗1次/d,20min/次,连续7d为一疗程,在治疗前后采用研究者症状评分和患者症状自评分对患者餐后腹胀、早饱感、上腹痛、上腹烧灼感及恶心5个症状进行评分,差值越大,治疗效果越好,比较两组受试者以及临床疗效总有效率的差异.结果:两组治疗前后在研究者评分及患者自评分中均有下降,但与对照组相比CTPG组下降更为明显,在临床研究者评分中,症状总积分(4.033±1.903vs1.700±1.579,t=5.169,P<0.05),餐后腹胀(0.967±0.850vs0.533±0.776,t=2.062,P<0.05),早饱感(0.933±0.785vs0.300±0.466,t=3.800,P<0.05),上腹痛(0.900±0.759vs0.400±0.563,t=2.898,P<0.05),上腹烧灼感(0.700±0.702vs0.300±0.535,t=2.482,P<0.05),恶心(0.533±0.776vs0.200±0.407,t=2.482,P<0.05),临床疗效总有效率较对照组亦明显升高(96.7%vs70.0%,2=7.68,P<0.05);患者自评分中,CTPG组评分与对照组相比也明显下降,差值较大,症状总积分(12.633±5.714vs6.767±4.232,t=4.519,P<0.05),餐后腹胀(3.200±2.188vs2.100±1.729,t=2.161,P<0.05),早饱感(2.633±2.025vs1.500±0.563,t=2.461,P<0.05),上腹痛(2.567±1.942vs1.267±1.437,t=2.948,P<0.05),上腹烧灼感2.500±2.403vs1.033±1.189,t=2.996,P<0.05),恶心(1.733±1.946vs0.833±1.177,t=2.167,P<0.05),临床疗效总有效率较对照组亦明显增高(90.0%vs80.0%,2=1.18,P<0.05).结论:心理语言结合胃电起搏协同强化治疗功能性消化不良疗效优于单纯胃电治疗对照组,是非药物治疗功能性消化不良的一种新选择,也提示了心理调试在治疗功能性消化不良方面的必要性.
AIM： To assess the efficacy of psychological language combined with gastric pacing （GP） for treating functional dyspepsia （FD）. METHODS： Sixty patients with FD diagnosed according to the Rome III criteria were randomly divided into a combination treatment group （n = 30） and a GP group （n = 30）. All patients were placed in a quiet environment. The combination treatment group received psychological language and gastric pacing synchronization output, and the voice ran throughout the treatment to guide gastric electrical pacing. The GP group underwent GP only. The treatment （20 min each） was given once daily for seven consecutive days. Researcher-rated symptom scores and patients’ self-rated symptom scores （both overall and individual symptom scores） were calculated to assess clinical efficacy before and after treatment. Clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups of subjects. RESULTS： Researcher-rated symptom scores and patients’ self-rated symptom scores decreased in both groups after treatment. Compared to the GP group, the combination treatment group had more significantly decreased researcher-rated overall symptom score （4.033 ± 1.903 vs 1.700 ± 1.579, t = 5.169, P〈0.05）, postprandial bloating （0.967 ± 0.850 vs 0.533 ± 0.776, t = 2.062, P〈0.05）, early satiety （0.933 ± 0.785 vs 0.300 ± 0.466, t = 3.800, P〈0.05）, upper abdominal pain （0.900 ± 0.759 vs 0.400 ± 0.563, t = 2.898, P〈0.05）, abdominal burning sensation （0.700 ± 0.702 vs 0.300 ± 0.535, t = 2.482, P〈0.05）, and nausea （0.533 ± 0.776 vs 0.200 ± 0.407, t = 2.482, P〈0.05）, scores. The overall response was significantly higher in the combination treatment group than in the GP group （96.7% vs 70.0%, c2 = 7.68, P〈0.05）. Compared to the GP group, the combination treatment group also had more significantly decreased self-rated overall symptom score （12.633 ± 5.714 vs 6.767 ± 4.232, t = 4.519, P〈0.05）, postprandial bloating （3.200 ± 2.188 vs 2.100 ± 1.729, t = 2.161, P〈0.05）, early satiety （2.633 ± 2.025 vs 1.500 ± 0.563, t = 2.461, P〈0.05）, upper abdominal pain （2.567 ± 1.942 vs 1.267 ± 1.437, t = 2.948, P〈0.05）, abdominal burning sensation （2.500 ± 2.403 vs 1.033 ± 1.189, t = 2. 996, P〈0.05）, and nausea scores （1.733 ± 1.946 vs 0.833 ± 1.177, t = 2.167, P〈0.05）. The overall response was significantly higher in the combination treatment group than in the GP group （90.0% vs 80.0%, c2 = 1.18, P〈0.05）. CONCLUSION： Psychological language combined with GP is more effective than GP alone in the treatment of FD, and is a new option for non-drug treatment of FD.
出处
《世界华人消化杂志》
CAS
北大核心
2013年第3期250-255,共6页
World Chinese Journal of Digestology
基金
首都医学发展科研基金资助项目
No.2009-3088~~
