| Literature DB >> 35190764 |
Qiu Zheng1, Li Cao2, Huanhuan Ma1, Yangyang Jin3, Yufei Gao4, Jiating Nie5, Qingfeng Guo6.
Abstract
Acute pancreatitis represents a disease characterized by acute necro-inflammatory changes in the pancreas, which is histologically characterized by destruction of alveolar cells. We aim to explore whether evidence-based care can improve treatment compliance and quality of life of patients with acute pancreatitis. The changes of hemoglobin (HGB), serum pre-albumin (PAB), and serum albumin (ALB) before and after care were observed, as well as the incidence of complications after care, total effective rate after care, disease severity (bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis, BISAP) before and after care, and psychological scores of the two groups before and after care were observed. Patients' compliance after care, self-management scores after care, and quality of life after care were compared between the two groups. After care, HGB, PAB, and ALB increased significantly in both groups (p < 0.05) and were higher in OG than CG. Compared with CG, OG had significantly lower incidence of complications (p=0.009), significantly higher total effective rate (p=0.011), significantly lower disease severity (p < 0.05), significantly better psychological condition scores (p < 0.05), significantly higher compliance scores (p < 0.05), higher self-management scores (p < 0.05), and significantly higher quality of life (p < 0.001). Evidence-based care can improve treatment compliance of patients with acute pancreatitis and can effectively improve their quality of life.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35190764 PMCID: PMC8858044 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7621658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
General data between observation group and control group (n [%]).
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.246 | 0.806 | ||
| 46.8 ± 8.6 | 47.2 ± 8.9 | |||
| Gender | 0.267 | 0.605 | ||
| Male | 43 (66.15) | 32 (61.54) | ||
| Female | 22 (33.85) | 20 (38.46) | ||
| BMI (kg/cm2) | 0.748 | 0.456 | ||
| 25.62 ± 3.05 | 26.16 ± 4.72 | |||
| Living environment | 0.067 | 0.796 | ||
| Town | 41 (63.08) | 34 (65.38) | ||
| Countryside | 24 (36.92) | 18 (34.62) | ||
| Dietary habit | 0.007 | 0.933 | ||
| Good | 28 (43.08) | 22 (42.31) | ||
| Poor | 37 (56.92) | 30 (57.69) | ||
| Smoking history | 0.032 | 0.859 | ||
| Present | 44 (67.69) | 36 (69.23) | ||
| Absent | 21 (32.31) | 16 (30.77) | ||
| Drinking history | 0.178 | 0.673 | ||
| Present | 40 (61.54) | 30 (57.69) | ||
| Absent | 25 (38.46) | 22 (42.31) | ||
| Family medical history | 0.086 | 0.769 | ||
| Present | 10 (15.38) | 7 (13.46) | ||
| Absent | 55 (84.62) | 45 (86.54) | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.491 | 0.484 | ||
| Han | 56 (86.15) | 47 (90.38) | ||
| Minority | 9 (13.85) | 5 (9.62) | ||
| C-reactive protein (mh/L) | 0.142 | 0.888 | ||
| 23.12 ± 5.34 | 23.26 ± 5.29 | |||
| White blood cell (×109/L) | 1.121 | 0.265 | ||
| 14.64 ± 2.31 | 15.11 ± 2.18 |
Figure 1Changes of HGB, PAB, and ALB before and after care between observation group and control group. (a) HGB changes before and after care. (b) PAB changes before and after care. (c) ALB changes before and after care. Note.denotes comparison with before care; & denotes comparison with observation group.
Adverse reaction rate after care between observation group and control group [n (%)].
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respiratory disorder | ||||
| 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.92) | |||
| Impaired cardiac function | ||||
| 0 (0.00) | 2 (3.85) | |||
| Gastrointestinal hemorrhage | ||||
| 1 (1.54) | 3 (5.77) | |||
| Renal dysfunction | ||||
| 1 (1.54) | 3 (5.77) | |||
| Total (%) | 6.868 | 0.009 | ||
| 2 (3.08) | 9 (17.31) |
Total effective rate of the two groups after care between observation group and control group [n (%)].
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Markedly effective | ||||
| 49 (75.38) | 22 (42.31) | |||
| Effective | ||||
| 15 (23.08) | 23 (44.23) | |||
| Ineffective | ||||
| 1 (1.54) | 7 (13.46) | |||
| Total effective rate | 6.447 | 0.011 | ||
| 64 (98.46) | 45 (86.54) |
Figure 2Recovery degree of the two groups before and after care. Note.denotes comparison with before care; & denotes comparison with observation group.
Figure 3Psychological scores of two groups before and after care. (a) SAS score of the two groups before and after care. (b) SDS score of the two groups before and after care. Note. denotes comparison with before care; & denotes comparison with observation group.
Figure 4Comparison of patients' compliance after care between the two groups.
Figure 5Comparison of self-management scores between two groups after care. (a) The score of disease management in the two groups after care. (b) The score of diet management in the two groups after care. (c) The score of medication management in the two groups after care. (d) The score of rehabilitation exercise management in the two groups after care.
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups.
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical function | 13.010 | <0.001 | ||
| 91.23 ± 3.26 | 83.22 ± 3.37 | |||
| Role physical | 21.020 | <0.001 | ||
| 85.52 ± 3.56 | 72.30 ± 3.14 | |||
| Emotional function | 25.510 | <0.001 | ||
| 86.53 ± 3.25 | 70.74 ± 3.42 | |||
| Cognitive function | 12.690 | <0.001 | ||
| 91.43 ± 3.59 | 83.34 ± 3.21 | |||
| Social function | 21.640 | <0.001 | ||
| 65.55 ± 3.18 | 52.64 ± 3.24 |