冠心病心绞痛规范治疗的临床效果研究

Study on the Clinical Effect of Standard Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease and Angina Pectoris

目的探究冠心病心绞痛规范治疗的临床效果。方法选择该院2019年1月—2020年1月收治的90例冠心病心绞痛患者作为对象,将其随机等分为对照组和观察组。对照组采用常规治疗,观察组在此基础上引入规范治疗,对比两组的临床疗效,观察并记录两组患者治疗前后每日心绞痛发生频次、持续时间及心率,采用《VAS评分法》评估患者治疗前后的疼痛程度,采用《SF-36评分量表》评估两组患者治疗后的生活质量,采用《SAS/SDS评分表》评估两组患者的情绪状态。结果观察组的临床总有效率为97.78%明显高于对照组73.33%,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=10.879,P<0.05);观察组治疗后每日心绞痛发生频次为(0.75±0.48)次明显低于对照组的(1.54±0.67)次,差异有统计学意义(t=6.429,P<0.05),观察组治疗后心绞痛持续时间为(7.01±2.13)min明显低于对照组的(12.51±2.85)min,差异有统计学意义(t=10.369,P<0.05),观察组治疗后心率指标为(75.01±2.13)次/min明显低于对照组的(85.99±3.51)次/min,差异有统计学意义(t=17.939,P<0.05);观察组治疗后VAS评分为(3.11±0.61)分明显低于对照组的(5.87±1.13)分,差异有统计学意义(t=14.417,P<0.05);观察组的SF-36总体功能评分为(86.25±7.86)分明显高于对照组的(68.66±7.02)分,差异有统计学意义(t=11.197,P<0.05);观察组在治疗后SAS评分为(6.21±1.33)分明显低于对照组的(11.66±1.43)分,差异有统计学意义(t=18.720,P<0.05),观察组在治疗后SDS评分为(6.18±1.20)分明显低于对照组的(12.33±1.60)分,差异有统计学意义(t=20.627,P<0.05)。结论予以冠心病心绞痛患者实施规范治疗可有效缓解患者的不良情绪,且治疗效果显著,值得推广和应用。

Objective To explore the clinical effect of standard treatment of coronary heart disease and angina pectoris.Methods Ninety patients with coronary heart disease and angina pectoris admitted to the hospital from January 2019 to January 2020 were selected as subjects, and they were randomly divided into control group and observation group. The control group adopted conventional treatment, and the observation group introduced standard treatment on this basis.The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared, and the frequency, duration and heart rate of angina pectoris in the two groups were observed and recorded daily before and after treatment. The "VAS score" was used to assess the pain level of patients before and after treatment, the "SF-36 score scale" was used to assess the quality of life of the two groups of patients after treatment, and the "SAS/SDS score scale" was used to assess the emotional state of the two groups of patients. Results The total clinical effective rate of the observation group was 97.78% significantly higher than that of the control group 73.33%, and the difference was statistically significant(χ^(2)=10.879, P<0.05). The daily frequency of angina pectoris in the observation group after treatment was(0.75±0.48) significantly lower than that of the control group(1.54±0.67), and the difference was statistically significant(t =6.429, P <0.05). The duration of angina pectoris after treatment in the observation group(7.01±2.13)min was significantly lower than that in the control group(12.51±2.85)min, and the difference was statistically significant(t=10.369, P<0.05). The heart rate index of the observation group after treatment(75.01 ±2.13)times/min was significantly lower than that of the control group(85.99±3.51)times/min, and the difference was statistically significant(t=17.939, P<0.05). The VAS score of the observation group after treatment was(3.11±0.61) points significantly lower than that of the control group(5.87±1.13) points,and the difference was statistically significant(t =14.417, P <0.05). The overall function score of SF-36 in the observation group was(86.25±7.86) points significantly higher than that of the control group(68.66±7.02) points, and the difference was statistically significant(t=11.197, P<0.05). The SAS score of the observation group after treatment was(6.21 ±1.33)points significantly lower than that of the control group(11.66 ±1.43)points, and the difference was statistically significant(t =18.720, P <0.05). The SDS score of the observation group after treatment was(6.18 ±1.20)points, significantly lower than that of the control group(12.33 ±1.60)points, and the difference was statistically significant(t=20.627, P<0.05). Conclusion Standardized treatment for patients with coronary heart disease and angina pectoris can effectively alleviate the patients’ unhealthy emotions, and the treatment effect is significant, which is worthy of promotion and application.