切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胃食管反流病电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (04) : 167 -171. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2018.04.007

所属专题: 文献

论著

氩离子凝固术在Barrett食管中治疗效果及安全性分析
米亚赛尔·力提甫1, 美丽克扎提·安扎尔1, 艾合买江·库尔班江1,()   
  1. 1. 830000 乌鲁木齐 新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院消化科
  • 收稿日期:2018-01-15 出版日期:2018-11-15
  • 通信作者: 艾合买江·库尔班江

Analysis of therapeutic effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation in barrett's esophagus

Litifu Miyasaier·1, Anzhaer Meilikezhati·1, Kuerbanjiang Aimaitijiang·1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumuqi 830001, China
  • Received:2018-01-15 Published:2018-11-15
  • Corresponding author: Kuerbanjiang Aimaitijiang·
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Aimaitijiang·Kuerbanjiang, Email:
引用本文:

米亚赛尔·力提甫, 美丽克扎提·安扎尔, 艾合买江·库尔班江. 氩离子凝固术在Barrett食管中治疗效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2018, 05(04): 167-171.

Litifu Miyasaier·, Anzhaer Meilikezhati·, Kuerbanjiang Aimaitijiang·. Analysis of therapeutic effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation in barrett's esophagus[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2018, 05(04): 167-171.

目的

探讨氩离子凝固术(APC)在Barrett食管中治疗效果和安全性。

方法

选取2016年1月至2017年2月新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院诊治Barrett食管患者83例临床资料行回顾性分析,根据患者治疗方案分为干预组(APC+埃索拉唑、莫沙必利治疗,52例)和常规组(埃索拉唑、莫沙必利治疗,31例),比较2组患者症状改善情况、疗效及不良反应发生率。

结果

干预组和常规组治疗前反酸、胸骨后疼痛、腹胀评分比较:(5.5±1.1)分vs (5.4±1.3)分,(5.1±1.2)分vs (5.0±1.1)分,(4.9±1.3)分vs (4.7±1.5)分,t=0.3606、0.3635、0.6165,P=0.7194、0.7172、0.5394。干预组和常规组治疗3月反酸、胸骨后疼痛、腹胀评分比较:(2.2±0.3)分vs (2.3±0.5)分,(2.0±0.4)分vs (2.2±0.5)分,(2.1± 0.6)分vs (2.0±0.4)分,t=1.1056、1.9339、0.7881,P=0.2724、0.0569、0.4331。治疗后3月,干预组反酸、胸骨后疼痛、腹胀评分与治疗前比较:(2.2±0.3)分vs (5.5±1.1)分,(2.0±0.4)分vs (5.1± 1.2)分,(2.1±0.6)分vs (4.9±1.3)分;t=20.4657、17.3295、13.8282,P=0.0000。治疗后3月,常规组反酸、胸骨后疼痛、腹胀评分与治疗前比较:(2.3±0.5)分vs (5.4±1.3)分,(2.2±0.5)分vs (5.0± 1.1)分,(2.0±0.4)分vs (4.7±1.5)分;t=11.7771、12.2620、9.2031,P=0.0000。干预组患者治疗总有效率显著于常规组[95.83% vs 70.37%,χ2=7.6172,P=0.0058]。干预组患者和常规组患者不良反应总发生率比较无统计学意义[12.50% vs 14.81% ,χ2=0.0050,P=0.9436]。

结论

APC治疗Barrett食管可改善患者病变,具有显著疗效和较高治疗安全性。

Objective

To investigate the effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation (APC) in Barrett's esophagus.

Method

Select 83 case of Barrett esophagus patients in our hospital during Jan., 2016~Feb., 2017 as retrospective analysis, patients were divided into intervention group (APC plus exoporazole, mosapride treatment, 52 cases) and routine group (esoprazole, mosapride treatment, 31 cases) according to the treatment plan of patients. The improvement of symptoms was compared between the two groups., efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions.

Result

Comparison of anti-acid, post-sternal pain and abdominal distension scores in the intervention group and the conventional group before treatment: (5.5±1.1) scores vs (5.4±1.3) scores, (5.1±1.2) scores vs (5.0±1.1) scores, (4.9±1.3) scores vs (4.7±1.5) scores, t is 0.3606, 0.3635, 0.6165, and P is 0.7194, 0.7172, 0.5394. Comparison of anti-acid, post-sternal pain and abdominal distension scores in intervention group and routine group for 3 months: (2.2±0.3) scores vs (2.3± 0.5) scores, (2.0 ± 0.4) scores vs (2.2 ± 0.5) scores, (2.1 ± 0.6)scores vs (2.0 ± 0.4) scores, t is 1.1056、1.9339、0.7881, and P is 0.2724、0.0569、0.4331. After 3 months of treatment, the anti-acid, post-sternal pain, and abdominal distension scores of the intervention group were compared with those before treatment: (2.3±0.5) scores vs (5.4±1.3) scores, (2.2±0.5) scores vs (5.0±1.1) scores, (2.0±0.4) scores vs (4.7±1.5) scores, t is 11.7771、12.2620、9.2031, and P value is 0.0000. After 3 months of treatment, the conventional group was compared with acid, post-sternal pain, and abdominal distension scores before treatment: (2.3± 0.5) scores vs (5.4 ± 1.3) scores, (2.2 ± 0.5) scores vs (5.0 ± 1.1) scores, (2.0 ± 0.4) scores vs (4.7 ± 1.5) scores, t is 11.7771、12.2620、9.2031, and P value is 0.0000. The total effective rate of treatment in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the conventional group [95.83% vs 70.37%, χ2= 7.6172, P=0.0058]. The overall incidence of adverse reactions in the intervention group and the conventional group was not statistically significant [12.50% vs 14.81%, χ2=0.0050, P=0.9436].

Conclusion

APC treatment of Barrett's esophagus can improve the patient's symptoms and improve the patient's pathology, with a significant effect and higher treatment safety.

表1 2组患者一般临床资料(±s
表2 2组患者治疗前、治疗3个月症状评分(分,±s
表3 2组患者疗效是[n(%)]
表4 2组患者不良反应发生率[例(%)]
1
Pham TH, Genta RM, Spechler SJ. et al. Development and Characterization of a Surgical Mouse Model of Reflux Esophagitis and Barrett's Esophagus [J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2014, 18(2): 234-241.
2
Almond LM, Hutchings J, Lloyd G. et al. Endoscopic Raman spectroscopy enables objective diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dig Dis, 2014, 79(1): 37-45.
3
Dunbar KB, Souza RF, Spechler SJ. et al. The Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Barrett's Esophagus [J]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, 2015, 44(2): 415.
4
李小林,余倩,张学彦,等. Barrett食管的内镜介入治疗[J].胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2015, 24(5): 603-605.
5
中华医学会消化病学分会. Barrett食管诊治共识(2005重庆草案)[J].胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2006, 9(18): 7-8.
6
吴昊,刘延军,马正良,等.视觉模拟量表评估患者术前焦虑程度的效度[J].中华麻醉学杂志, 2016, 36(8): 1021-1022.
7
Sharaiha RZ, Freedberg DE, Abrams JA. et al. Cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention with proton pump inhibitors in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2014, 59(6): 1222-1230.
8
李晶晶,连军.窄带成像诊断Barrett食管及早期食管腺癌分析[J].现代仪器与医疗, 2017, 23(6): 23-25.
9
Boerwinkel DF, Holz JA, Hawkins DM. et al. Fluorescence spectroscopy incorporated in an Optical Biopsy System for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dis Esophagus, 2015, 28(4): 345-351.
10
Song J, Zhang J, Guo X. et al.Meta-analysis of the effects of endoscopy with narrow band imaging in detecting dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dis Esophagus, 2015, 28(6): 560-566.
11
郑仕诚,邓巍,郭洁,等.胃食管反流病诊断新进展[J].中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2015, 2(1): 45-47.
12
Dunn LJ, Jankowski JA, Griffin SM. et al. Trefoil Factor Expression in a Human Model of the Early Stages of Barrett's Esophagus [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2015, 60(5): 1187-1194.
13
卢娟,刘爱华,赵成波,等.内镜下氩离子凝固术联合质子泵抑制剂治疗Barrett食管的近远期疗效分析[J].实用临床医药杂志, 2016, 20(1): 81-82.
14
张成,克力木,李义亮,等.氩离子凝固术联合腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术加胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并Barrett食管的疗效观察[J].中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(11): 1084-1087.
15
赫晓磊,黄晓玲,高峰,等.氩气凝固术联合艾司奥美拉唑肠溶片治疗206例Barrett食管患者的疗效观察[J].中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2017, 4(2): 63-65.
16
张艳,陈爽,董文佳,等.氩离子凝固术联合药物治疗Barrett食管的临床研究[J].实用医院临床杂志, 2016, 13(4): 106-108.
17
李应杰.内镜下氩离子凝固术联合乌梅汤加减方治疗Barrett食管临床观察[J].陕西中医, 2017, 38(5): 556-557.
[1] 王杰, 袁泉, 王玥琦, 乔佳君, 谭春丽, 夏仲元, 刘守尧. 溃疡油在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的应用效果及安全性观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 480-484.
[2] 聂生军, 王钰, 王毅, 鲜小庆, 马生成. 复方倍他米松局部注射联合光动力疗法治疗小型瘢痕疙瘩的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(05): 404-410.
[3] 莫淇舟, 苏劲, 黄健, 李健维, 李思宁, 柳建军. 智能控压输尿管软镜碎石吸引取石术在直径10~25 mm上尿路结石中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 497-502.
[4] 李义亮, 苏拉依曼·牙库甫, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 机器人与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术联合Nissen 胃底折叠术短期疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 512-517.
[5] 周艳, 李盈, 周小兵, 程发辉, 何恒正. 不同类型补片联合Nissen 胃底折叠术修补食管裂孔疝的疗效及复发潜在危险因素[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[6] 王小琴, 汪丽, 崔建英. 无张力疝修补术治疗慢性肾功能衰竭合并腹股沟疝患者的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 538-542.
[7] 詹济玮, 蔡柳春, 温琼娜, 郭石生, 温春妹, 温鹤明. 布地格福联合噻托溴铵治疗AECOPD 的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 823-826.
[8] 王亚岚, 倪婧, 余世庆, 陶银花, 张荣. 尼达尼布抗纤维化治疗特发性肺纤维化的耐受性和疗效预测因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 750-755.
[9] 魏孔源, 仵正, 王铮, 黎韡. 机器人胰腺中段切除后远端胰腺消化道不同重建方式初探[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 295-300.
[10] 梁艳娉, 列诗韵, 王艺穗, 吴晓瑛, 林颖. 基于内镜操作细节记录系统构建胃底静脉曲张内镜下组织胶注射术的标准化管理方案[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 705-709.
[11] 陈杰, 武明胜, 李一金, 李虎, 向源楚, 荣新奇, 彭健. 低位直肠癌冷冻治疗临床初步分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 494-498.
[12] 史彬, 司远. 益气和络方联合缬沙坦治疗气阴两虚兼血瘀证IgA 肾病的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 306-312.
[13] 韩俊岭, 王刚, 马厉英, 连颖, 徐慧. 维生素D 联合匹维溴铵治疗腹泻型肠易激综合征患者疗效及对肠道屏障功能指标的影响研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 560-564.
[14] 阳跃, 庹晓晔, 崔子豪, 欧阳四民, 林海阳, 胡景宇, 胡银, 李涛, 赵景峰, 郝岱峰, 冯光. 改良“阅读者”皮瓣修复骶尾部压疮的疗效[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 751-755.
[15] 克地尔牙·马合木提, 胡波, 杨琼, 闫素, 胡岚卿, 高沛沛, 姚恩生. 依达拉奉右莰醇对急性脑梗死后认知功能障碍的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 459-466.
阅读次数
全文


摘要