痰热清注射液与喜炎平注射液治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期临床疗效的对比研究

摘要

Objective To compare the clinical effect on AECOPD between tanreqing injection and xiyanping injection.Methods From October 2014 to May 2016,a total of 136 patients with moderate to severe AECOPD were selected in the Department of Respiratory Medicine,Xidian Group Hospital,and they were divided into A group and B group according to random number table,each of 68 cases.Based on conventional treatment,patient of A group received tanreqing injection,while patients of B group received xiyanping injection;both groups continuously treated for 10 days.Clinical effect,SGRQ score,6-minute walking distance,index of pulmonary function(included FEV1,FVC and FEV1/FVC),serum inflammatory cytokines(including IL-6,IL-8,TNF-α and CRP)levels before and after treatment were compared between the two groups,and incidence of adverse reactions was observed during the treatment.Results Clinical effect of A group was statistically significantly better than that of B group(P<0.05).No statistically significant differences of SGRQ score or 6-minute walking distance was found between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05);after treatment, SGRQ score of A group was statistically significantly lower than that of B group,while 6-minute walking distance of A group was statistically significantly longer than that of B group(P<0.05).No statistically significant differences of FEV1,FVC or FEV1/FVC was found between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05),while FEV1,FVC and FEV1/FVC of A group were statistically significantly higher than those of B group after treatment(P<0.05).No statistically significant differences of serum level of IL-6,IL-8,TNF-α or CRP was found between the two groups before or after treatment(P>0.05).No statistically significant differences of incidence of adverse reactions was found between the two groups during the treatment(P>0.05).Conclusion Tanreqing injection has better clinical effect than xiyanping injection in treating AECOPD,can more effectively improve the pulmonary function and activity endurance,and tanreqing injection has similar safety with xiyanping injection.%目的 比较痰热清注射液与喜炎平注射液治疗慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重期(AECOPD)的临床疗效.方法 选取2014年10月-2016年5月西电集团医院呼吸内科收治的中、重度AECOPD患者136例,采用随机数字表法分为A组和B组,每组68例.在常规治疗基础上,A组患者予以痰热清注射液治疗,B组患者予以喜炎平注射液治疗;两组患者均连续治疗10 d.比较两组患者临床疗效、治疗前后圣·乔治医院呼吸问题调查问卷(SGRQ)评分、6分钟步行距离(6MWD)、肺功能指标〔第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、用力肺活量(FVC)及第1秒用力呼气容积与用力肺活量比值(FEV1/FVC)〕、血清炎性因子〔白介素6(IL-6)、白介素8(IL-8)、肿瘤坏死因子α(TNF-α)及C反应蛋白(CRP)〕水平,并观察两组患者治疗期间不良反应发生情况.结果 A组患者临床疗效优于B组(P<0.05).治疗前两组患者SGRQ评分及6MWD比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后A组患者SGRQ评分低于B组,6MWD长于B组(P<0.05).治疗前两组患者FEV1、FVC及FEV1/FVC比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后A组患者FEV1、FVC及FEV1/FVC高于B组(P<0.05).治疗前后两组患者血清IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α及CRP水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 痰热清注射液治疗AECOPD患者的临床疗效优于喜炎平注射液,可更有效地改善患者肺功能,提高患者活动耐力,而二者安全性相似.