皮肤点刺试验与皮肤压痕试验对比研究

Comparison of skin prick test and skin press test

目的:了解过敏性哮喘及变应性鼻炎患者对皮肤点刺试验与皮肤压痕试验的耐受情况与阳性反应。方法:选择过敏性哮喘及过敏性鼻炎患者共40例,同时进行特异性变应原皮肤点刺与皮肤压痕试验。了解患者对2种方法的不适感及恐惧程度,并比较2种方法对特异性变应原检测结果的相关性。结果:2种方法对特异性变应原检测阳性率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。患者对皮肤点刺试验不适感37例(93%),痛感39例(97.5%),恐惧感33例(82.5%);对皮肤压痕试验不适感31例(77.5%),痛感35例(87.5%),恐惧感24例(60.0%),2种方法比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。27例患者更愿意接受皮肤压痕试验,10例患者愿意选择点刺法,二者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:2种方法对特异性变应原检测结果基本一致,压痕法患者痛苦少,恐惧感小,更易接受,临床上可以用皮肤压痕试验代替皮肤点刺试验。

Objective： To observe the tolerance of skin prick test and skin press test in patients with allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis, and to compare the results of two tests. Methods： Forty patients with allergic asthma and rhinitis were tested by the two tests with ten allergens simultaneously and asked about the feet： ings of patients （discomfort, scare, ets）. Results： Thirty seven cases were uncomfortable with skin prick test and 31 with skin press test, 35 cases had painful feeling with skin prick test and 32 with skin press test, 32 cases had apprehension of skin prick test and 25 of skin press test. The difference between two tests was significant （P 〈0.05）. Twenty seven patients preferred skin press test. The difference of the positive rates of allergens between two tests had no significance （P〉0.05）. Conclusion. The results of two tests were similar, especially the positive cases. We think skin press test can substitute for skin prick test in clinical practice.