| Literature DB >> 35607398 |
Yan Lu1, Feifei Wang1.
Abstract
ERCP is an effective method for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. With the improvement of endoscopes by researchers and the intubation and angiography technologies of medical workers, the role of ERCP in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases has become increasingly important. Although ERCP is a minimally invasive diagnostic technique, it still falls into the category of surgery, and thus the physical and psychological dysfunction of patients undergoing ERCP caused by various factors such as surgery cannot be ignored. This study explored the effects of the procedural nursing plan based on the thinking map guidance mode on hemodynamics and intestinal function recovery of ERCP patients. The results showed that this plan could reduce the effects of ERCP on hemodynamics of patients, promote intestinal function recovery, relieve their bad psychology, reduce postoperative complications, and help to improve patients' satisfaction with the nursing work, and it was worthy of promotion.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35607398 PMCID: PMC9124142 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6555150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Med Int ISSN: 2090-2840 Impact factor: 1.621
Figure 1Thinking map of procedural nursing care for patients with ERCP.
Comparison of general data of patients between the two groups.
| Group | n | Gender (n) | Age (years old) | Course of disease (months) | Type of disease (n) | Degree of education (n) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Biliary tract diseases | Pancreatic diseases | Junior high school or below | Senior high school or technical secondary school | College and above | ||||
| Study group | 48 | 26 | 22 | 46.25 ± 3.46 | 14.28 ± 3.17 | 29 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
| Control group | 48 | 25 | 23 | 46.59 ± 3.15 | 14.19 ± 3.52 | 30 | 18 | 14 | 15 | 19 |
|
| — | 0.042 | 0.503 | 0.132 | 0.044 | 0.212 | ||||
|
| — | 0.838 | 0.616 | 0.896 | 0.834 | 0.900 | ||||
Comparison of hemodynamic changes between two groups ( ± s).
| Group | n | MAP (mmHg) | HR (beats/min) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | ||
| Study group | 48 | 129.16 ± 5.83 | 104.31 ± 7.12 | 113.14 ± 4.20 | 95.11 ± 4.29 | 94.34 ± 8.35 | 80.96 ± 8.12 | 94.13 ± 4.25 | 82.83 ± 5.28 |
| Control group | 48 | 129.75 ± 5.64 | 106.26 ± 6.57 | 119.33 ± 5.29 | 99.48 ± 5.52 | 94.64 ± 8.71 | 86.65 ± 7.53 | 98.22 ± 3.24 | 87.17 ± 4.09 |
Figure 2Histogram of comparison of intestinal function recovery between the two groups. Compared with the control group, P < 0.05.
Comparison of changes in SAS and SDS scores between the two groups ( ± s, score).
| Group |
| SAS | SDS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On admission | Preoperatively | Postoperative | On admission | Preoperatively | Postoperative | ||
| Study group | 48 | 50.39 ± 8.17 | 41.09 ± 5.13 | 32.26 ± 5.28 | 51.26 ± 7.52 | 43.33 ± 6.22 | 38.39 ± 5.84 |
| Control group | 48 | 50.46 ± 8.28 | 44.34 ± 6.10 | 36.19 ± 5.84 | 51.36 ± 7.57 | 48.34 ± 5.69 | 43.21 ± 5.78 |
Comparison of the average hospitalization days, average medical cost, and satisfaction with nursing ( ± s).
| Group | n | Average hospitalization days (d) | Average medical cost (million yuan) | Satisfaction with nursing (score) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | 48 | 7.22 ± 1.19 | 1.32 ± 0.16 | 94.28 ± 4.26 |
| Control group | 48 | 12.52 ± 2.63 | 1.79 ± 0.25 | 88.71 ± 5.93 |
|
| — | 12.720 | 10.971 | 5.258 |
|
| — | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of complications between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group | n | Hyperamylasemia | Acute pancreatitis | Acute cholangitis | Diarrhea | Gastrointestinal hemorrhage | Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | 48 | 1 (2.08) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.08) | 1 (2.08) | 3 (6.25) |
| Control group | 48 | 4 (8.33) | 1 (2.08) | 1 (2.08) | 2 (4.17) | 2 (4.17) | 10 (20.83) |
|
| — | 4.360 | |||||
|
| — | 0.037 |