普瑞巴林联合加巴喷丁治疗脑梗死后中枢性疼痛的临床观察

发布时间：2018-04-01 04:43

本文选题：普瑞巴林　切入点：加巴喷丁　出处：《中国药房》2017年08期

【摘要】：目的:探讨普瑞巴林联合加巴喷丁治疗脑梗死后中枢性疼痛的临床疗效及安全性。方法:选取我院2010年1月-2015年12月诊治脑梗死后中枢性疼痛患者共150例,采用随机数字表法分为A、B、C组,每组50例。A组患者采用普瑞巴林胶囊75mg,po,bid联合加巴喷丁胶囊0.1 g,po,tid;B组患者采用普瑞巴林胶囊75 mg,po,bid;C组患者采用加巴喷丁胶囊0.1 g,po,tid。3组患者治疗时间均为4周。观察3组患者治疗前后视觉模拟评分(VAS)、疼痛数字评分(NRS)、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数量表(PSQI)和健康调查简表(SF-36)评分,并据此评价3组患者的临床疗效;同时,记录3组患者不良反应发生情况。结果:A、B、C组患者临床治疗总有效率分别为94.00%、74.00%、70.00%;A组患者临床治疗总有效率显著优于B组和C组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗后,A、B、C组患者VAS评分分别为(3.87±0.74)、(5.10±1.26)和(5.03±1.23)分,NRS评分分别为(3.91±0.88)、(5.29±1.25)和(5.37±1.30)分,A组患者VAS评分和NRS评分均显著低于B、C组及治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);A、B、C组患者PSQI评分分别为(4.03±0.85)、(5.92±1.16)和(5.83±1.11)分,SF-36评分分别为(372.84±73.25)、(348.07±60.54)和(345.67±59.72)分;A组患者PSQI和SF-36评分均显著优于B、C组及治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);3组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:相较于普瑞巴林与加巴喷丁单用,二者联用治疗脑梗死后中枢性疼痛可更显著地减轻患者自感疼痛水平,改善睡眠和日常生活工作质量,且未增加不良反应发生风险,故针对脑梗死后中枢性疼痛特别是两者单药应用效果不佳患者可考虑联合用药方案。
[Abstract]:Objective: to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of PreBahrain combined with gabapentin in the treatment of central pain after cerebral infarction. Methods: 150 patients with central pain after cerebral infarction from January 2010 to December 2015 in our hospital were selected. The method of random digital table was used to divide the group Acarb C into two groups. Each group of 50 patients in group A was treated with 75 mg / g Pabaldine capsule bid combined with 0.1 mg / g propotidine capsule (group B) for 4 weeks. Group C was treated with gabapentin capsule (0.1 mg / L) for 4 weeks. The patients in group B were treated with 75 mg / g pobidine capsule (group C) for 4 weeks, and the patients in group B (group B) were treated with pabapentin capsule (0.1 mg / L) for 4 weeks. Visual analogue scores (VASA), pain numbers (NRSs), Pittsburgh Sleep quality Index (PSQI) and Health Survey Summary form (SF-36) were assessed before and after treatment. The results showed that the total effective rate of clinical treatment in group C was 94.00% and 74.00% in group A respectively, and the total effective rate of group A was significantly better than that of group B and group C. The VAS scores in group A were 3.87 卤0.74 卤1.26) and 5.03 卤1.23) respectively. The scores of VAS and NRS in group A were significantly lower than those in group A (3.91 卤0.88 卤1.29 卤1.25) and group A (5.37 卤1.30), respectively. There were significant differences in PSQI and SF-36 scores in group A (4.03 卤0.85 卤1.16) and group A (5.83 卤1.11), respectively. The scores of SF-36 were 372.84 卤73.25, 348.07 卤60.54) and 345.67 卤59.72, respectively. The scores of PSQI and SF-36 in group A were significantly better than those in group C and before treatment. Conclusion: compared with pragabine and gabapentin alone, the treatment of central pain after cerebral infarction can significantly reduce the level of self-pain and improve the quality of sleep and daily life. The risk of adverse reactions was not increased, so the combination regimen could be considered for patients with central pain after cerebral infarction, especially for patients with poor effect of single drug application.
【作者单位】：玉溪市人民医院神内一科;
【分类号】：R743.33

【参考文献】