| Literature DB >> 36212962 |
Hongxia Tang1, Li Gao1, Yahui Li2.
Abstract
Background: Cervical Carcinoma (CC) is the second most common cause of death in women, with most patients being diagnosed at an advanced stage. The conventional treatment for CC, with a long chemotherapy treatment cycle, is less than satisfactory and will cause serious damage to the patient's blood vessels. Objective: To analyze the impact of the clinical nursing pathway (CNP) on the incidence of complications and adverse prognosis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for CC via peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Materials andEntities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212962 PMCID: PMC9546696 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4040033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Comparison of general data between the two groups (n (%) (mean ± SD).
| Categories | Research group ( | Control group ( | t/ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age (years) | 51.17 ± 5.62 | 49.59 ± 5.24 | 1.779 | 0.077 |
|
| ||||
| Average course of disease (years) | 2.62 ± 0.96 | 2.97 ± 1.88 | 1.530 | 0.128 |
|
| ||||
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.68 ± 2.56 | 24.23 ± 3.98 | 1.054 | 0.294 |
|
| ||||
| Smoking history | 1.553 | 0.216 | ||
| Yes | 33 (35.48) | 29 (45.31) | ||
| No | 60 (64.52) | 35 (54.69) | ||
|
| ||||
| Drinking history | 0.179 | 0.672 | ||
| Yes | 38 (40.86) | 24 (37.50) | ||
| No | 55 (59.14) | 40 (62.50) | ||
|
| ||||
| History of hypertension | 0.055 | 0.813 | ||
| With | 41 (44.09) | 27 (42.19) | ||
| Without | 52 (55.91) | 37 (57.81) | ||
|
| ||||
| TNM stage | 1.061 | 0.303 | ||
| I | 35 (37.63) | 19 (29.69) | ||
| II | 58 (62.37) | 45 (70.31) | ||
Comparison of self-management ability between the two groups after nursing (mean ± SD).
| Groups |
| Self-managementinformation | Catheter maintenance ability | Self-care compliance | Abnormal situation management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 93 | 91.43 ± 4.59 | 89.96 ± 6.31 | 94.16 ± 5.86 | 90.60 ± 7.55 |
| Control group | 64 | 83.50 ± 4.44 | 83.03 ± 4.78 | 81.45 ± 7.51 | 79.52 ± 6.51 |
|
| — | 10.779 | 7.437 | 11.892 | 9.547 |
|
| — | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of complications after nursing intervention between the two groups (n (%)).
| Categories | Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catheter blockage | 0 (0.00) | 2 (3.13) | 2.944 | 0.086 |
| Catheter detachment | 2 (2.15) | 3 (4.69) | 0.791 | 0.374 |
| Infection | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.56) | 1.462 | 0.226 |
| Venous thrombosis | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.56) | 1.462 | 0.226 |
| Bleeding at puncture site | 1 (1.08) | 2 (3.13) | 0.849 | 0.356 |
| Pressure sores | 1 (1.08) | 3 (4.69) | 1.992 | 0.158 |
| Overall incidence | 4 (4.30) | 12 (18.75) | 8.648 | 0.003 |
Analysis of poor prognosis of patients in two groups after nursing intervention (n (%)).
| Groups |
| Recurrence | Metastasis | Death | The total incidence of poor prognosis (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 93 | 2 (2.15) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.08) | 3 (3.23) |
| Control group | 64 | 3 (4.69) | 2 (3.13) | 3 (4.69) | 8 (12.50) |
|
| — | 0.791 | 2.944 | 1.992 | 5.005 |
|
| — | 0.374 | 0.086 | 0.158 | 0.025 |
Figure 1Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups of patients. (a) Service timeliness scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (b) Management standardization scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (c) Service attitude scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (d) Hospitalization environment scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (e) Comprehensive quality of nursing staff scores after nursing intervention in both groups. Note: P < 0.05 between the two groups.
Figure 2Comparison of QLQ-C30 scores between the two groups before and after the nursing intervention. (a) Somatic function scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (b) Role function scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (c) Cognitive function scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (d) Emotional function scores of both groups after nursing intervention. (e) Social function scores of both groups after nursing intervention. Note: P < 0.05 between the two groups.