加减藿朴夏苓汤配合胃动力仪治疗功能性消化不良（脾胃湿热证）临床疗效观察

发布时间：2018-05-15 11:00

本文选题：加减藿朴夏苓汤 + 胃动力治疗仪　；参考：《湖南中医药大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:观察加减藿朴夏苓汤配合胃动力仪治疗功能性消化不良脾胃湿热证患者的临床疗效及安全性。方法:将2015年1月~2016年1月收治的98例功能性消化不良脾胃湿热证患者按照随机数字表顺序随机分为综合治疗组35例,中药治疗组32例,西药治疗组31例。综合治疗组予加减藿朴夏苓汤口服,配合胃动力治疗仪治疗;中药治疗组予加减藿朴夏苓汤口服;西药治疗组予盐酸伊托必利片、泮托拉唑钠肠溶胶囊口服,三组疗程均为2周。治疗结束后对疾病疗效、中医证候总积分变化、VAS疼痛评分、不良反应等方面进行统计分析。结果:(1)综合治疗组总有效率为97.14%,中药治疗组总有效率为84.38%,西药治疗组总有效率为80.65%,综合治疗组与中药治疗组、综合治疗组与西药治疗组总有效率比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),中药治疗组与西药治疗组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。(2)中医证候总积分变化,三组治疗后与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),治疗后综合治疗组与中药治疗组比较、综合治疗组与西药治疗组比较、中药治疗组与西药治疗组比较,差异分别具有统计学意义(P0.05)。在改善脘腹胀满症状三组两两比较差异分别具有统计学意义(P0.05);在改善胃脘疼痛、身重困倦、口干口苦症状,综合治疗组与中药治疗组比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),综合治疗组与西药治疗组、中药治疗组与西药治疗组比较,差异分别具有统计学意义(P0.05)。(3)上腹疼痛VAS评分,综合治疗组与中药治疗组、综合治疗组与西药治疗组、中药治疗组与西药治疗组比较差异分别具有统计学意义(P0.05)。(4)不良反应观察,综合治疗组与中药治疗组未出现明显的不良反应及毒副作用,西药治疗组出现肠鸣2例,腹泻1例。结论:加减藿朴夏苓汤配合胃动力仪治疗功能性消化不良脾胃湿热证患者疗效肯定,能有效缓解临床症状,安全无副作用,值得临床推广。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of Jiajiao Pu Xia Ling decoction combined with gastric motility instrument in the treatment of functional dyspepsia with dampness and heat of spleen and stomach. Methods: from January 2015 to January 2016, 98 cases of functional dyspepsia with damp-heat syndrome of spleen and stomach were randomly divided into comprehensive treatment group (n = 35), traditional Chinese medicine group (n = 32) and western medicine group (n = 31). The combined treatment group was treated with Xianhuapu Xialing decoction, combined with gastric motility therapy instrument; the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group was treated with Xianhuipuling decoction; the western medicine treatment group was treated with itopride hydrochloride tablets and pam Tora sodium enteric-soluble capsules. All the three groups were treated for 2 weeks. After the treatment, the effect of the disease, the total integral changes of TCM syndromes and VAS pain score, adverse reactions were statistically analyzed. Results the total effective rate of the comprehensive treatment group was 97.145.The total effective rate of the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group was 84.38, and the total effective rate of the western medicine treatment group was 80.65.The total effective rate of the comprehensive treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group was 84.38, and the total effective rate of the western medicine treatment group was 80.65. The difference of total effective rate between the comprehensive treatment group and the western medicine treatment group was statistically significant (P 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group and the western medicine treatment group. There was significant difference between the three groups after treatment and before treatment (P 0.05). There were significant differences between the comprehensive treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group, the comprehensive treatment group and the western medicine treatment group, and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group and the western medicine treatment group after treatment. There were statistically significant differences among the three groups in improving the symptoms of epigastric distention and fullness, and in the improvement of epigastric pain, heavy sleepiness, dry-mouth bitter symptoms, and comparison between the comprehensive treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group. The difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). The VAS score of upper abdominal pain was significantly higher in the comprehensive treatment group than in the western medicine treatment group, the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group and the western medicine treatment group. The VAS scores of upper abdominal pain in the combined treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group were significantly higher than those in the traditional Chinese medicine group. There were significant differences in adverse reactions between the comprehensive treatment group and the western medicine treatment group, the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group and the western medicine treatment group, respectively (P 0.05. 05. 4). There were no obvious adverse reactions and side effects in the comprehensive treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group, and there were no significant adverse reactions and side effects in the comprehensive treatment group and the traditional Chinese medicine treatment group. In the western medicine treatment group, there were 2 cases of intestinal tinnitus and 1 case of diarrhea. Conclusion: the treatment of functional dyspepsia of spleen and stomach dampness and heat syndrome by adding and reducing Huopu Pu Xia Ling decoction and gastric motility instrument is effective in relieving clinical symptoms, safety and no side effects, and is worth popularizing clinically.
【学位授予单位】：湖南中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R259

【相似文献】