摘要
目的探讨电休克治疗难治性精神分裂症的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2017年1月～2018年6月我院收治的50例难治性精神分裂症患者的临床资料,按照治疗方案不同将其分为观察组(25例)和对照组(25例)。对照组患者给予利培酮治疗,观察组患者给予电休克治疗,比较两组患者的临床治疗效果、治疗前后阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评分和威斯康辛卡片分类测验(WCST)结果变化情况以及治疗期间不良反应总发生率。结果观察组患者的治疗总有效率略高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者入院时的PANSS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者治疗后2、5、9周的PANSS评分均显著低于入院时,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者治疗后2、5、9周的PANSS评分均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者入院时的WCST情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者治疗后9周的总测验次数、错误应答数、持续性错误数均显著低于入院时,完成分类数显著高于入院时,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者治疗后9周的总测验次数、错误应答数、持续性错误数均显著低于对照组,完成分类数显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者治疗期间的不良反应总发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论电休克治疗难治性精神分裂症的效果与利培酮相似,安全性均良好,但在改善患者阳性和阴性症状方面的效果更明显,值得临床推荐。
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of electroconvulsive shock in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. Methods The clinical data of 50 patients with refractory schizophrenia treated in our hospital from January 2017 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the observation group (25 cases) and the control group (25 cases) according to the different treatment schemes. The patients in control group were treated with Risperidone and the patients in observation group were treated with electroconvulsive shock. The clinical treatment effect, the positive and negative symptom scales (PANSS) scores and the changes in the Wisconsin card sorting test (WCST) results before and after treatment and the total incidence rate of adverse reactions during treatment were compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate of the observation group was slightly higher than that of the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in PANSS scores between the two groups at admission (P>0.05). The PANSS scores at 2, 5, and 9 weeks after treatment in the two groups were significantly lower than those at admission, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The PANSS scores at 2, 5, and 9 weeks after treatment of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the WCST between the two groups at admission (P>0.05). The total number of tests, the number of false responses and the number of persistent errors at 9 weeks after treatment in the two groups were significantly lower than those at admission, the number of completed classifications was significantly higher than that at admission, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The total number of tests, the number of false responses and the number of persistent errors at 9 weeks after treatment in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group, the number of completed classifications was significantly higher than that in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total incidence rate of adverse reactions between the two groups during treatment (P>0.05). Conclusion The effect of electroconvulsive shock is similar to that of Risperidone in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia and both have fine safety. However, electroconvulsive shock is more effective in improving the positive and negative symptoms of patients, which is worthy of clinical recommendation.
作者
刘龙平
潘荣新
胡艳萍
胡鑫鑫
张小红
LIU Long-ping;PAN Rong-xin;HU Yan-ping;HU Xin-xin;ZHANG Xiao-hong(Department of Psychiatry, the Second Hospital of Xinyu City, Jiangxi Province, Xinyu 338000, China;Department of Anesthesiology, the Second Hospital of Xinyu City, Jiangxi Province, Xinyu 338000, China)
出处
《中国当代医药》
2019年第7期88-91,共4页
China Modern Medicine
基金
江西省新余市科技计划项目(20183090871)
关键词
难治性精神分裂症
电休克
利培酮
疗效
安全性
Refractory schizophrenia
Electroconvulsive shock
Risperidone
Efficacy
Safety
