| Literature DB >> 36093392 |
Tiantian Lin1, Qiaoyan Lin2, Yuying Feng3, Lingchu Dong4.
Abstract
Heart failure is the final stage of the development of heart disease, with a high mortality and disability rate. It poses a serious threat to human health and brings tremendous pressure to human society. Preventing respiratory infections in patients with heart failure is also the first priority of care. This article is aimed at studying the nursing analysis of respiratory tract care based on big data exchanges to prevent respiratory tract infections in patients with heart failure. This article uses benchmark and sample collection. Studies have shown that for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, its resistance to ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and cefoxitin has reached more than 80%. It is also suitable for piperacillin, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, aztreonam, gentamicin, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin. The resistance rate of stars is within 10%-30%. These antibiotics are effective and can be used for clinical treatment. The drug resistance rates of ceftazidime, imipenem, meropenem, and amikacin were all lower than 10%, and the drug resistance rates of ceftazidime and imipenem were much lower than those reported in the 2016 literature. These antibiotics have become the most effective drugs for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Basically, good communication of respiratory care data is realized, thereby preventing respiratory care analysis of patients with heart failure.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093392 PMCID: PMC9458378 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4310841
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Rehospitalization rate of patients with heart failure.
Baseline data of patients in the treatment group and the control group.
| Therapy group | Control group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 13/17 | 15/15 | 0.605 |
| Age | 67.71 ± 12.02 | 69.47 ± 10.43 | 0.546 |
| Height (cm) | 166.14 ± 7.44 | 167.13 ± 5.85 | 0.566 |
| Weight (kg) | 63.23 ± 9.41 | 60.21 ± 8.24 | 0.095 |
| Hypertension | 13 | 15 | 0.605 |
| Diabetes | 11 | 8 | 0.405 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 4 | 3 | 0.688 |
| Smoke | 11 | 8 | 0.405 |
|
| 22 | 25 | 0.347 |
| ACEI/ARB | 25 | 19 | 0.080 |
| Spironolactone | 27 | 26 | 0.688 |
| Loop diuretics | 22 | 23 | 0.476 |
Difficulty breathing before and after treatment.
| Therapy group | Control group |
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |||||
| Respiration rate (times/min) | ||||||||
| 1 hour | 18.33 ± 2.44 | 16.30 ± 2.89 | 18.10 ± 1.69 | 17.11 ± 1.93 | 0.214 | 0.041 | 0.032 | 0.043 |
| 5 days | 18.11 ± 2.45 | 15.12 ± 2.11 | 18.10 ± 1.69 | 14.23 ± 2.52 | 0.214 | 0.300 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Dyspnea score | ||||||||
| 1 hour | 4.33 ± 0.80 | 4.23 ± 0.70 | 4.43 ± 0.68 | 3.77 ± 0.82 | 0.604 | 0.027 | 0.048 | 0.297 |
| 5 days | 4.33 ± 0.80 | 1.19 ± 0.55 | 4.43 ± 0.68 | 1.28 ± 0.39 | 0.604 | 0.514 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Changes in heart rate of the two groups of patients within 1 hour.
| Therapy | Control | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 79.8 | 81.1 |
| 2 | 76.4 | 76.5 |
| 3 | 74.2 | 75 |
| 4 | 75.4 | 73.8 |
| 5 | 72.8 | 72.8 |
Figure 2Heart rate trend of the two groups of patients within 5 days.
Biochemical indicators of the two groups of patients before and after treatment.
| Therapy group | Control group |
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |||||
| Na+ (mmol/L) | 138.32 ± 2.67 | 137.96 ± 3.51 | 138.65 ± 1.77 | 138.12 ± 1.86 | 0.567 | 0.510 | 0.615 | 0.271 |
| K+ (mmol/L) | 3.72 ± 0.43 | 3.79 ± 0.34 | 3.81 ± 0.34 | 3.71 ± 0.38 | 0.330 | 0.364 | 0.477 | 0.230 |
| CL−(mmol/L) | 105.10 ± 1.92 | 1.4.59 ± 1.80 | 104.71 ± 2.39 | 104.68 ± 1.99 | 0.476 | 0.857 | 0.295 | 0.969 |
| Ca2+(mmol/L) | 2.33 ± 0.07 | 2.34 ± 0.06 | 2.35 ± 0.09 | 2.34 ± 0.07 | 0.407 | 0.717 | 0.676 | 0.850 |
| Creatinine (mmol/L) | 65.10 ± 17.30 | 72.00 ± 17.55 | 70.17 ± 13.38 | 68.19 ± 16.19 | 0.210 | 0.410 | 0.078 | 0.750 |
| eGFR (mmol/L) | 108.2 ± 57.91 | 92.93 ± 38.07 | 93.24 ± 27.22 | 91.27 ± 25.45 | 0.147 | 0.774 | 0.375 | 0.758 |
Comparison of self-efficacy scores between the two groups patients before and after intervention.
| Objects | Evaluation time | Intervention group | Control group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average self-efficacy | Before evaluation | 6.38 ± 0.77 | 6.23 ± 0.86 | 0.833 | 0.407 |
| After evaluation | 7.30 ± 0.66 | 6.29 ± 0.88 | 5.879 | <0.001 |
Score in two groups patients itself before and after.
| Group | Number of cases | Before evaluation | After evaluation |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | 40 | 6.38 ± 0.77 | 7.30 ± 0.66 | −11.581 | <0.001 |
| Control group | 41 | 6.23 ± 0.86 | 6.29 ± 0.88 | −0.866 | 0.392 |
Figure 3Distribution of the top ten pathogenic bacteria with the most detected cases.
Comparison of resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 2019 with its resistance in 2018.
| Antibiotic name | Resistance in 2018 (%) | Resistance in 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Ampicillin | 95.7 | 93.8 |
|
| Piperacillin | 12.4 | 21.7 |
|
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | 95.7 | 95.9 |
|
| Piperacillin/Tazobactam | 9.7 | 23.6 |
|
| Cefazolin | 4.3 | 13.2 |
|
| Cefuroxime | 98.4 | 97.9 |
|
| Ceftazidime | 94.6 | 93.5 |
|
| Ceftriaxone | 10.3 | 8.3 |
|
| Cefotaxime | 86.5 | 83..6 |
|
Figure 4The remaining part of the drug action diagram.