| Literature DB >> 35726291 |
Zhenlu Li1, Zhen Liu1, Zongping Yu1.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application of somatostatin combined with nasal plug catheterization in patients with advanced gastric cancer and acute intestinal obstruction. Methods. This study included 94 cases of patients with acute intestinal obstruction and advanced gastric cancer, and according to the length of hospital stay, the patients were randomly divided into two groups: the control group and the study group, with 47 cases in each group. Based on the observations made by the team in the control group given somatostatin combined treatment, we observed two groups of patients with gastrointestinal function, serum index, quality of life, therapeutic effect, and adverse reactions. Results. Abdominal distention, abdominal pain duration, and normal exhaust time were significantly shorter in the study group than in the control group. The study group was higher than the control group in terms of gastrointestinal decompression volume, drainage volume, and abdominal circumference reduction within 24 hours (P < 0.05). After treatment, the levels of CRP, IgA, LPS, and FABP were lower than before, and the levels of CRP, IgA, LPS, and FABP in the former group were much lower than those in the latter group (P < 0.05). Compared with before treatment, the former GIQLI scale score was significantly higher than the latter (P < 0.05). After treatment, the efficiency is much higher than the latter (P < 0.05). After treatment, the former significantly lowers the incidence of postoperative complications of the latter (P < 0.05). Conclusion. For patients with advanced gastric cancer and acute intestinal obstruction, it is safe and feasible to use somatostatin combined with transnasal intestinal obstruction catheterization to restore gastrointestinal function, improve inflammatory response, and promote the improvement of quality of life with high safety and feasibility.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35726291 PMCID: PMC9206574 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9747880
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Comparison of gastrointestinal function improvement ( ± s).
| Group | Control group ( | Study group ( |
|---|---|---|
| Duration of abdominal distention (h) | 43.59 ± 10.25 | 27.13 ± 8.32# |
| Normal exhaust time (D) | 7.03 ± 1.64 | 4.54 ± 1.24# |
| Gastrointestinal decompression volume (mL) | 594.32 ± 105.42 | 1139.47 ± 153.37# |
| Discharge flow (mL) | 337.25 ± 86.89 | 664.25 ± 112.09# |
| Abdominal circumference reduction (cm) | 9.67 ± 2.81 | 15.38 ± 3.05# |
Compared with control group, #P < 0.05.
Comparison of serum-related indicators ( ± S).
| Group | Time | Control group ( | Study group ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Before the treatment | 35.61 ± 7.38 | 35.62 ± 7.40 |
| After the treatment | 24.69 ± 5.64 | 14.35 ± 4.32∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 2.19 ± 0.51 | 2.16 ± 0.52 |
| After the treatment | 1.82 ± 0.45 | 1.54 ± 0.36∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 193.62 ± 24.69 | 192.84 ± 24.70 |
| After the treatment | 84.59 ± 17.72 | 41.38 ± 12.34∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 275.64 ± 22.56 | 274.95 ± 23.14 |
| After the treatment | 225.86 ± 19.67 | 175.68 ± 16.35∗# | |
Note, compared with control group, #P < 0.05.
Figure 1Comparison of serum related indicators ((a): CRP; (b): IgA; (c): LPS; (d): FABP, compared with before treatment and control group, P < 0.05).
Figure 22GIQLI score comparison: (a) conscious behavior; (b) physiological state; (c) psychological mood; (d) social role; (e) special situation, compared with before treatment and control group, P < 0.05.
Comparison of GIQLI scores ( ± S, points).
| Group | Time | Control group ( | Study group ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Before the treatment | 16.48 ± 4.23 | 16.47 ± 4.25 |
| After the treatment | 17.91 ± 4.52 | 21.50 ± 4.83∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 16.10 ± 3.04 | 16.11 ± 3.05 |
| After the treatment | 17.32 ± 3.24 | 19.48 ± 3.34∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 15.58 ± 3.17 | 15.59 ± 3.15 |
| After the treatment | 17.64 ± 3.30 | 20.07 ± 3.46∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 15.97 ± 3.69 | 15.93 ± 3.68 |
| After the treatment | 17.68 ± 3.82 | 20.18 ± 4.10∗# | |
|
| |||
|
| Before the treatment | 18.59 ± 2.57 | 18.57 ± 2.60 |
| After the treatment | 19.73 ± 2.61 | 21.65 ± 2.83∗# | |
Compared with the control group, #P < 0.05.
Comparison of therapeutic effects (cases, %).
| Group | Control group ( | Study group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heal | 24 (51.06) | 30 (63.83) | — | — |
| Valid | 17 (36.17) | 15 (31.91) | — | — |
| Invalid | 6 (12.77) | 2 (4.26) | — | — |
| Therapeutic response rate | 87.23% | 95.74% | 0.924 | 0.001 |
Comparison of incidence of adverse reactions (cases, %).
| Group | Control group ( | Study group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infection | 2 (4.26) | 0 (0.00) | — | — |
| Allergic reaction | 1 (2.13) | 1 (2.13) | — | — |
| Nausea and vomiting | 1 (2.13) | 2 (4.26) | — | — |
| Vertigo | 1 (2.13) | 0 (0.00) | — | — |
| Abdominal cavity effusion | 2 (4.26) | 1 (2.13) | — | — |
| Incidence of postoperative complications | 14.89% | 8.51% | 2.307 | 0.019 |