| Literature DB >> 36093394 |
Weixin Zhang1, Beiyu Zhang2, Hongyan Zhang2, Yingyan Zhang1, Jingmei Sun3, Liyan Gao4, Taotao Yang3.
Abstract
Studies have shown that most patients after PCI cannot adhere to the cardiac rehabilitation program. The survey found that due to the lack of secondary prevention of cardiac rehabilitation, the phenomenon of drug reduction and withdrawal after PCI is very common after discharge, leading to recurrence of the patient's disease or worsen and repeated hospitalizations, so continuity of care is very important. In this paper, in addition to proposing a network care continuum with artificial intelligence handler in order to improve the healthcare system and provide new ideas for improving the postoperative recovery of CHD patients, we analyze the impact of PCI on the coronary heart disease patients' PCI postoperative quality of life. In the method part, this article introduces the concepts of continuation care and PCI after surgery, introduces the marker delivery algorithm in the field of artificial intelligence, and introduces the SF-36 scale for patient quality of life analysis. This article designs an experiment combining artificial intelligence processors to carry out network continuity care for patients and divides 100 eligible patients into an experimental group and a control group. In the analysis part, the two groups of patients were analyzed in terms of general data comparison, physical function, biochemical indicators, quality of life, and dependence. It can be seen from the experimental analysis that the anxiety and depression of the two groups of subjects have different degrees of decline. The HAMA value of the experimental group is 9.06 ± 0.77, and the HAMD value is 9.18 ± 1.20, which is significantly lower than that of the control group, P < 0.05. It can be seen that the use of network continuation care can reduce the negative emotions of patients more than general care. Through psychological counseling and postoperative follow-up, it can improve the optimism and positive emotions of the patients, reduce the negative emotions of the patients, and improve it to a certain extent.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093394 PMCID: PMC9462997 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3046554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Diagram of blood vessel status before and after PCI (picture from case patient picture).
Figure 2Home user terminal structure block diagram.
Comparison of information between two groups of patients with coronary heart disease.
| Item | Test group | Control group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 41.86 ± 4.9 | 44 ± 3.2 | 1.762 | 0.168 | |
|
| |||||
| Gender | Male | 31 (70.84) | 35 (63.58) | 1.652 | 0.176 |
| Female | 19 (27.43) | 15 (33.72) | |||
|
| |||||
| Marital status | Married | 35 (82.43) | 38 (86.35) | 0.323 | 0.692 |
| Unmarried | 15 (30.22) | 12 (29.34) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employment status | Employed | 8 (18.54) | 10 (19.86) | 0.084 | 0.937 |
| Unemployed | 42 (91.23) | 40 (89.43) | |||
|
| |||||
| Education level | Junior high school and below | 6 | 9 | -0.325 | 0.792 |
| High school or technical secondary school | 18 | 23 | |||
| Junior college | 19 | 14 | |||
| Bachelor degree and above | 7 | 4 | |||
Comparison of functional area scores in patients with coronary heart disease.
| Item | Test group | Control group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical function | 43.78 ± 13.32 | 48.29 ± 13.87 | -2.34 | 0.1434 |
| Role function | 57.85 ± 21.87 | 54.12 ± 16.34 | 1.20 | 0.3921 |
| Emotional function | 54.21 ± 12.89 | 56.72 ± 13.82 | -1.39 | 0.7367 |
| Cognitive function | 60.31 ± 17.38 | 53.72 ± 15.59 | 2.31 | 0.0782 |
| Social function | 63.26 ± 16.33 | 53.87 ± 19.67 | 3.32 | 0.4628 |
| General health | 74.63 ± 13.53 | 67.29 ± 12.78 | 3.88 | 0.0827 |
Figure 3Estimated marginal mean of cardiac function score.
Comparison of biochemical indicators between the two groups before treatment.
| Group | Blood pressure (mmHg) | Blood lipids (mmol/L) | Fasting blood glucose (mmol/L) | Heart rate (times/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test group | 137.32 ± 11.82 | 6.01 ± 0.34 | 7.59 ± 1.98 | 91.39 ± 9.14 |
| Control group | 137.30 ± 14.07 | 6.07 ± 0.41 | 7.57 ± 1.93 | 91.02 ± 8.45 |
|
| -0.128 | -0.721 | 0.014 | 0.139 |
|
| 0.822 | 0.463 | 0.918 | 0.873 |
Comparison of biochemical indicators between the two groups at 8 weeks after treatment.
| Group | Blood pressure (mmHg) | Blood lipids (mmol/L) | Fasting blood glucose (mmol/L) | Heart rate (times/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test group | 118.32 ± 11.82 | 3.02 ± 0.34 | 4.99 ± 0.78 | 78.82 ± 7.31 |
| Control group | 129.91 ± 14.07 | 5.31 ± 0.37 | 6.37 ± 1.63 | 84.23 ± 8.18 |
|
| -4.012 | -16.945 | -4.782 | -3.940 |
|
| 0.002 | 0.021 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Comparison of the psychological status of the two groups of subjects before and after intervention.
| Group | HAMA | HAMD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| Test group | 11.89 ± 1.92 | 9.06 ± 0.77 | 13.48 ± 1.65 | 9.18 ± 1.20 |
| Control group | 11.37 ± 2.43 | 10.78 ± 0.79 | 13.76 ± 1.87 | 12.09 ± 1.04 |
|
| -0.298 | 15.927 | -0.426 | 10.628 |
|
| 0.628 | 0.001 | 0.647 | 0.001 |
Figure 4Before and after treatment for patients with coronary heart disease.
Figure 5Comparison of rehabilitation compliance between two groups after intervention.
Comparison of the ability of daily living.
| Group |
| On discharge | Three months after discharge | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No need to rely on | Need to rely on | No need to rely on | Need to rely on | ||
| Test group | 50 | 34 | 16 | 43 | 7 |
| Control group | 50 | 33 | 17 | 35 | 15 |
|
| 0.083 | 3.786 | |||
|
| >0.05 | <0.05 | |||