| Literature DB >> 35251558 |
Rong Wang1,2, Gongxiang Duan2, Huilan Xu1, Yuanyuan Wu3, Yinhua Su2, Jianzhi Li2, Li Liao2, Daqi Liao2.
Abstract
Rehabilitation intervention which refers to the functional training by caregivers with the aid of specialized nursing techniques and the progressive promotion of patients' training initiative, with the purpose of improving mobility and quality of life, is of great significance. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of the rehabilitation intervention-centered targeted nursing model on the cardiac function recovery and negative emotions in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A total of 120 AMI patients admitted to our hospital between January 2019 and January 2020 were selected as the study subjects and randomly divided into group A (n = 60) and group B (n = 60), in which the group B patients received routine nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention, while based on the treatment in group B, the patients in group A underwent rehabilitation intervention-centered targeted nursing model. Then, the cardiac function indexes, negative emotion score, levels of risk factors for heart failure, complication rate (CR), and the quality of life (QOL) of the patients were compared between the two groups. The cardiac function indexes of the patients after nursing in group A were significantly better than those in group B (P < 0.001); the negative emotion scores of the patients after nursing in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P < 0.001); the levels of risk factors for heart failure of the patients after nursing in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P < 0.001); the CR of the patients in group A at 15 d and 30 d after admission was significantly lower than that in group B (P < 0.05); the QOL scores of the patients after nursing in group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P < 0.001). Rehabilitation intervention-centered targeted nursing model can optimize cardiac function, weaken the levels of risk factors for heart failure, reduce the incidence of complications, improve psychological conditions, and enhance the quality of life in AMI patients, which is worthy of application and promotion in clinical practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35251558 PMCID: PMC8894043 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1246092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of general information between the two groups.
| Group | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.038 | 0.845 | ||
| Male | 40 | 41 | ||
| Female | 20 | 19 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Age range | 32–74 | 33–74 | ||
| Average age | 51.21 ± 6.20 | 51.23 ± 6.21 | 0.018 | 0.986 |
| Hypertension | 32 | 33 | 0.034 | 0.855 |
| Cerebral infarction | 12 | 13 | 0.051 | 0.822 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 25 | 24 | 0.035 | 0.853 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Anterior wall | 25 | 24 | 0.035 | 0.853 |
| Inferior wall | 18 | 18 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Side wall | 10 | 8 | 0.261 | 0.609 |
| Others | 7 | 10 | 0.617 | 0.432 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| I | 26 | 27 | 0.034 | 0.854 |
| II | 22 | 20 | 0.147 | 0.702 |
| III | 12 | 13 | 0.051 | 0.822 |
Comparison of cardiac function indexes between the two groups .
| Types | Group A | Group B |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVESD (mm) | Before nursing | 55.21 ± 3.56 | Before nursing | 55.23 ± 4.01 | 0.029 | 0.977 |
| After nursing | 47.12 ± 3.25 | After nursing | 52.23 ± 3.58 | 8.186 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 13.000 |
| 4.323 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
| LVEDD (mm) | Before nursing | 62.12 ± 4.56 | Before nursing | 62.23 ± 4.65 | 0.131 | 0.896 |
| After nursing | 50.23 ± 3.98 | After nursing | 58.11 ± 3.54 | 11.459 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 15.217 |
| 5.461 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
| LVEF (%) | Before nursing | 45.65 ± 4.01 | Before nursing | 45.78 ± 4.02 | 0.177 | 0.860 |
| After nursing | 59.12 ± 5.78 | After nursing | 52.89 ± 5.79 | 5.899 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 14.832 |
| 7.813 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
| E/A ratio | Before nursing | 0.81 ± 0.21 | Before nursing | 0.82 ± 0.20 | 0.267 | 0.790 |
| After nursing | 2.01 ± 0.32 | After nursing | 1.35 ± 0.36 | 10.614 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 24.285 |
| 9.969 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
Comparison of negative emotion scores between the two groups (, points).
| Group | SDS | SAS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before nursing | After nursing | Before nursing | After nursing | ||
| Group A | 50.12 ± 5.32 | 30.26 ± 2.12 | 56.15 ± 5.30 | 35.11 ± 2.87 | |
| Group B | 50.32 ± 5.56 | 38.45 ± 3.68 | 56.35 ± 4.89 | 43.12 ± 4.85 | |
|
| 0.201 | 14.938 | 0.215 | 11.010 | |
|
| 0.841 | ≤0.001 | 0.831 | ≤0.001 | |
Comparison of the levels of risk factors for heart failure between the two groups (, pg/ml).
| Types | Group A | Group B |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang II | Before nursing | 160.21 ± 13.56 | Before nursing | 161.20 ± 13.25 | 0.404 | 0.687 |
| After nursing | 110.20 ± 10.55 | After nursing | 130.35 ± 10.58 | 10.446 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 22.547 |
| 14.093 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
| ALD | Before nursing | 172.41 ± 15.45 | Before nursing | 172.42 ± 15.56 | 0.004 | 0.997 |
| After nursing | 132.58 ± 10.50 | After nursing | 156.32 ± 12.59 | 11.217 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 16.516 |
| 6.231 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
| BNP | Before nursing | 565.21 ± 74.21 | Before nursing | 566.50 ± 75.41 | 0.094 | 0.925 |
| After nursing | 160.25 ± 30.58 | After nursing | 240.65 ± 42.59 | 11.878 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| 39.081 |
| 29.144 | |||
|
| ≤0.001 |
| ≤0.001 | |||
Figure 1Comparison of the incidence of arrhythmia between the two groups. Note: the abscissa represented 1 d (T1), 15 d (T2), and 30 d (T3) after admission. The incidence of arrhythmias at T1 was 66.7% (40/60) in group A and 70.0% (42/60) in group B. The incidence of arrhythmias at T2 was 40.0% (24/60) in group A and 60.0% (36/60) in group B. The incidence of arrhythmias at T3 was 30.0% (18/60) in group A and 53.3% (32/60) in group B. P < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of the incidence of heart failure between the two groups. Note: the abscissa represented 1 d (T1), 15 d (T2), and 30 d (T3) after admission. The incidence of heart failure at T1 was 40.0% (24/60) in group A and 40.0% (24/60) in group B. The incidence of heart failure at T2 was 10.0% (6/60) in group A and 30.0% (18/60) in group B. The incidence of heart failure at T3 was 1.7% (1/60) in group A and 16.7% (10/60) in group B. P < 0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of the QOL after nursing between the two groups (, points). Note: the abscissa represented emotional function, physical function, social function, role function, and cognitive function. The emotional function scores were 86.21 ± 4.22 points in group A and 75.02 ± 5.41 points in group B. The physical function scores were 74.20 ± 5.21 points in group A and 69.10 ± 5.32 points in group B. The social function scores were 77.81 ± 3.02 points in group A and 67.23 ± 3.00 points in group B. The role function scores were 80.12 ± 2.41 points in group A and 70.23 ± 3.16 points in group B. The cognitive function scores were 76.20 ± 5.20 points in group A and 69.10 ± 3.00 points in group B. #P < 0.001.