| 赵莉莎,申旭.肺康复训练在肺癌患者预后中的作用[J].中国康复,2020,35(2):104-107 |
| 肺康复训练在肺癌患者预后中的作用 |
| Pulmonary rehabilitation training and prognosis of patients with lung cancer |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 肺癌 康复运动 生活质量 负性情绪 生存期 |
| 英文关键词: lung cancer rehabilitation training quality of life negative emotion survival |
| 基金项目:河北省卫生计生科研课题（2017-287） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 8697 |
| 全文下载次数: 3740 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：探讨非手术治疗的肺癌患者行肺康复训练对其呼吸功能、负性情绪、生活质量及生存期的影响。方法：选取非手术治疗的肺癌患者98例，采用随机数值表法分为康复组和对照组各49例，对照组仅进行常规抗肿瘤治疗，康复组在对照组基础上进行肺康复训练，每10周为1个康复周期，连续3个周期。分别于干预前，干预1、3个周期检测肺功能，采用6min步行试验（6-MWT）进行评定，采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评估患者焦虑及抑郁程度，采用圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)、SF-36生活质量评分量表(SF-36)评估生活质量，并统计分析并发症情况，随访记录患者无进展生存时间(PFS)、总生存期(OS)。结果：干预1、3个周期时，康复组第一秒用力呼气量（FEV1）、用力肺活量（FVC）、每分钟最大通气量（MVV）、6-MWT均较对照组明显增高（P＜0.05）；干预1、3个周期时康复组SAS、SDS评分较对照组明显降低（P＜0.05）；干预1、3个周期时康复组SGRQ评分低于对照组，SF-36评分高于对照组（P＜0.05）；干预期间，康复组并发症发生率（8.16%）低于对照组（26.5%）（P＜0.05）；平均随访（24.0±5.6）个月，康复组中位PFS（15.2个月）、中位OS（27.2个月）与对照组（13.8个月、25.6个月）比较差异无统计学意义。结论：肺康复训练可提高非手术治疗肺癌患者肺功能，缓解情绪障碍，提高生活质量，但对其生存期无明显影响。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To investigate the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation training on the respiratory function, negative emotion, quality of life and survival of non surgical lung cancer patients. Methods: Ninety-eight patients with non-surgical treatment of lung cancer were randomly divided into the rehabilitation training group and the control group. The control group only received routine anti-tumor treatment and rehabilitation. The pulmonary rehabilitation training was conducted in the rehabilitation training group on the basis of the control group, with 1 rehabilitation cycle every 10 weeks for 3 consecutive cycles. Before the intervention, and at 1st and 3rd cycles of intervention, the lung function was detected, and the anxiety and depression were assessed by Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). The quality of life was assessed by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the SF-36 Quality of Life Survey (SF-36), and the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were followed up. Results: When the intervention was performed for 1 and 3 cycles, FEV1, FVC and MVV in the rehabilitation training group were significantly higher, and 6 MWT was significantly farther than in the control group (P<0.05). The SAS and SDS scores in the rehabilitation training group were significantly lower than those in the control group at 1st and 3rd cycles of interventions (P<0.05). The SGRQ score in the rehabilitation training group was significantly lower, and the SF 36 score was significantly higher in the 1st and 3rd cycles of interventions than those in the control group (P<0.05). During the intervention period, the complication rate in the rehabilitation training group (8.16%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (26.5%) (P<0.05). The mean follow up period was (24.0±5.6) months, and there was no significant difference in the median PFS and median OS between the rehabilitation training group (15.2 months and 27.2 months) and control group (13.8 months and 25.6 months). Conclusion: Pulmonary rehabilitation training can improve lung function of patients with lung cancer, relieve mood disorders and improve quality of life, but has no significant effect on its survival. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
