口服和肌肉注射黄体酮治疗黄体功能不全所致先兆流产的临床效果及安全性对比分析

Efficacy between oral and intramuscular injection of progesterone treating threatened abortion caused by luteal phase defect and its safety:a comparative analysis

目的比较口服和肌肉注射黄体酮治疗黄体功能不全所致先兆流产患者的临床效果及治疗安全性。方法选取2017年1月至2018年3月我院妇产科收治的黄体功能不全所致先兆流产患者90例作为研究对象,随机分成观察组与对照组,每组45例。观察组患者口服黄体酮治疗,对照组患者肌肉注射黄体酮治疗,连续治疗2周,观察1个月。结果观察组患者的保胎成功率为93.33%,对照组患者的保胎成功率为91.11%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者的腰痛缓解时间、腹痛缓解时间、止血时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗期间,观察组患者的不良反应总发生率为6.7%,对照组为20.0%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论口服及肌注黄体酮治疗先兆流产患者的保胎成功率及临床症状缓解效果差别不大,而口服治疗的不良反应发生率更低,值得在临床推广应用。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and treatment safety of oral with intramuscular injection of progesterone on threatened abortion caused by luteal phase defect.Methods A total of 90 patients with threatened abortion caused by luteal phase defect admitted to our department of gynecology and obstetrics of our hospital from January 2017 to March 2018 were selected as the objects.They were randomly divided into observation group and control group,with 45 cases in each group.The observation group was treated with oral progesterone,whereas the control group was treated with intramuscular injection of progesterone,with two-week continuous treatment and one-month observation.Results The success rate of tocolysis in the observation group was 93.33%,whereas 91.11%in the control group,with no statistically significant difference of comparison between the two groups(P>0.05).There was no statistically significant difference of comparison in the relief time of lumbago,relief time of abdominal pain and hemostasis time between the two groups(P>0.05).During treating period,the total incidence of adverse reactions was 6.7%in the observation group,while20.0%in the control group.The difference of comparison between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion The effect of oral and intramuscular injection of progesterone in the treatment of threatened abortion has little difference on the success rate of tocolysis and on the effect of clinical symptom relief,while the incidence of adverse reactions in oral therapy is lower,which is worthy of clinical application.