《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2021, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (8): 966-972.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2021.08.012

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

南皮县经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后患者心脏康复现状调查

蔡玮1,邢文华1,梁文平1,赵雷1,刘萍1,滕珲1,王国栋2()   

  1. 1.南皮县人民医院心内二科,河北沧州市 061500
    2.中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院心血管内科,北京市 100068
  • 收稿日期:2020-06-11 修回日期:2021-05-31 出版日期:2021-08-25 发布日期:2021-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 王国栋 E-mail:lukewang1972@sina.com
  • 作者简介:蔡玮(1988-),女,汉族,河北南皮县人,主治医师,主要研究方向:心血管及心脏康复。王国栋,男,医学博士,副主任医师。

Investigation of Cardiac Rehabilitation Status of Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Nanpi, Hebei

CAI Wei1,XING Wen-hua1,LIANG Wen-ping1,ZHAO Lei1,LIU Ping1,TENG Hui1,WANG Guo-dong2()   

  1. 1. Department 2 of Cardiology, Nanpi County People's Hospital, Cangzhou, Hebei 061500, China
    2. Department of Cardiology, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China
  • Received:2020-06-11 Revised:2021-05-31 Published:2021-08-25 Online:2021-08-25
  • Contact: WANG Guo-dong E-mail:lukewang1972@sina.com

摘要:

目的 调查分析南皮县经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后患者心脏康复现状。方法 选择本院2016年1月至2019年12月出院的PCI术后患者2264例,通过微信、电话以及问卷调查等方式,了解患者对心脏康复知识的知晓率。根据患者是否参加心脏康复将患者分为康复组(n = 326)和非康复组(n = 1809)。结果 共返回有效问卷2135例,有效率94.3%。冠心病PCI患者心脏康复的知晓率为44.9%,参与率为15.2%,门诊心脏康复参与率仅为0.56%。康复组健康调查简表(SF-36)中9个维度的生活质量得分均高于非康复组(t > 4.65, P < 0.05)。结论 南皮县PCI术后患者心脏康复知识匮乏,参与率极低,危险因素控制率较低,大部分患者没有恢复农业劳动。亟需摸索出切实可行的方法提高PCI术后患者的心脏康复知晓率和参与率,确保患者心血管病危险因素得到确切控制。

关键词: 经皮冠状动脉介入, 心脏康复, 农村地区, 调查, 南皮

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the status of cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in rural areas. Methods A total of 2264 patients after PCI in our hospital from January, 2016 to December, 2019 were selected. The awareness rate of patients on cardiac rehabilitation knowledge was investigated through WeChat, telephone and questionnaire. Patients were divided into rehabilitation group (n = 326) and non-rehabilitation group (n = 1809) according to whether they participated in cardiac rehabilitation. Results There were 2135 valid questionnaires. The awareness rate of cardiac rehabilitation in PCI patients with coronary heart disease in rural areas was 44.9%, the participation rate was 15.2%, and the participation rate of outpatient heart rehabilitation was only 0.56%. The scores of the MOS Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were higher in the rehabilitation group than in the non-rehabilitation group (t > 4.65, P < 0.05). Conclusion In rural areas, the knowledge of cardiac rehabilitation is poor for patients after PCI, the participation rate is low, the control rate of risk factors is low, and most patients do not return to farm work. It is important to take a way to improve the awareness and participation of cardiac rehabilitation for patients after PCI, to ensure the exact control of cardiovascular risk factors of patients.

Key words: percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac rehabilitation, rural areas, investigation, Nanpi