肺综合康复训练对肺癌放疗患者肺功能和症状的影响

贺婷婷; 贝宴屏; 徐国栋

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001746

肺综合康复训练对肺癌放疗患者肺功能和症状的影响

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001746

1.
宁波市医疗中心李惠利医院放疗科，浙江宁波 315040
2.
宁波市医疗中心李惠利医院胸外科，浙江宁波 315040

基金项目:

浙江省自然科学基金资助项目 LQ16H160002

详细信息

通讯作者:
贺婷婷, E-mail: hetingxi@126.com

中图分类号: R734.2 R730.7
计量
- 文章访问数: 252
- HTML全文浏览量: 133
- PDF下载量: 6
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-06-10
- 网络出版日期: 2022-02-19

Effect of comprehensive lung rehabilitation training on lung function and syndrome in patients with lung cancer undergoing radiotherapy

1.
Department of Radiotherapy, Li Huili Hospital, Ningbo Medical Center, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040, China

摘要

摘要: 目的探究肺综合康复训练对肺癌放疗患者肺功能、癌因性疲乏及症状、生活质量的影响。方法连续纳入2018年6月—2019年6月于宁波市医疗中心李惠利医院行放疗的肺癌患者87例，利用随机数字表法分为观察组(44例)和对照组(43例)，对照组采用常规放疗管理和院外管理，观察组在对照组基础上进行肺综合康复训练，持续24周，比较2组干预前后肺功能、癌因性疲乏[Piper疲乏修正量表(PFS-R)]、放疗相关症状[记忆症状评估量表(MSAS)]以及生活质量[欧洲癌症患者生活质量核心量表(EORTCQLQ-C30)]。结果干预后，观察组FEV1百分比预测值为(90.37±2.18)%、FVC百分比预测值为(93.65±2.20)%，MVV百分比预测值为(87.67±2.59)%，对照组上述指标分别为(87.33±2.38)%、(88.36±2.27)%、(83.47±2.19)%，2组比较差异有统计学意义(均P＜0.05)。观察组PFS-R评分为(4.58±0.60)分，低于对照组的(5.17±0.65)分(t=4.401，P＜0.05)。观察组咳嗽症候评分为(1.02±0.18)分，低于对照组的(1.78±0.23)分(t=17.186，P＜0.05)，2组食欲下降评分比较差异无统计学意义(t=0.491，P＞0.05)。干预后，观察组躯体维度、情绪维度和社会维度评分均高于对照组(均P＜0.05)，2组角色维度和认知维度比较差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05)。结论肺综合康复训练能够提高肺癌放疗患者肺通气功能，减轻癌因性疲乏以及咳嗽症状，提高生活质量。
- 肺综合康复训练 /
- 肺癌 /
- 放疗 /
- 肺功能 /
- 癌因性疲乏 /
- 症状
Abstract: Objective To explore the effect of comprehensive lung rehabilitation training on lung function, cancer-related fatigue, symptoms and quality of life in patients with lung cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Methods Eighty-seven lung cancer patients who received radiotherapy in Li Huili Hospital of Ningbo Medical Center from June 2018 to June 2019 were included in this study. They were divided into the observation group (44 cases) and control group (43 cases). The control group used conventional radiotherapy management and out-of-hospital management. The observation group used combined comprehensive lung rehabilitation training on the basis of the control group for 24 weeks. Lung function, cancer-related fatigue (PFS-R), MSAS and EORTCQLQ-C30 were compared before and after the intervention. Results After intervention, the predictive values of preFEV1%, preFVC% and preMVV% were (90.37±2.18)%, (93.65±2.20)% and (87.67±2.59)%, respectively, whereas those of the control group were (87.33±2.38)%, (88.36±2.27)% and (83.47±2.19)%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The PFS-R score of the observation group (4.58±0.60) was lower than that of the control group (5.17±0.65, t=4.401, P < 0.05). The score of cough syndrome in the observation group was 1.02±0.18, which was lower than that in the control group (1.78±0.23, t=17.186, P < 0.05). No significant difference in the score of appetite decline was found between the two groups (t=0.491, P>0.05). After intervention, the scores of physical dimension, emotional dimension and social dimension in the observation group were higher than those in the control group (all P < 0.05), and no significant difference in role dimension and cognitive dimension was found between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion Comprehensive lung rehabilitation training can improve lung ventilation function and quality of life relieve cancer-related fatigue and cough symptoms, and improve quality of life.
- Comprehensive lung rehabilitation training /
- Lung cancer /
- Radiotherapy /
- Lung function /
- Cancer-related fatigue /
- Syndrome

HTML全文

表 1 2组NSCLC术后放疗患者基线资料比较(例)

组别	例数	性别		年龄(x±s, 岁)	临床分期			合并疾病
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(x±s, 岁)	Ⅰ期	Ⅱ期	Ⅲa期	高血压	冠心病	糖尿病
观察组	44	30	14	64.37±6.58	17	21	6	5	3	8
对照组	43	25	18	65.24±6.69	14	24	5	7	2	5
统计值		0.943^a		0.616^b	0.358^c			0.442^a	0.001^a	0.735^a
P值		0.332		0.542	0.721			0.506	0.979	0.391
注：^a为χ²值，^b为t值, ^c为Z值。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 2组NSCLC术后放疗患者肺功能比较(x±s，%)

组别	例数	FEV1		FVC		MVV
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组	44	78.94±2.16	90.37±2.18^a	80.77±3.27	93.65±2.20^a	77.95±2.38	87.67±2.59^a
对照组	43	78.67±2.06	87.33±2.38^a	81.25±3.32	88.36±2.27^a	78.04±2.43	83.47±2.19^a
t值		0.596	6.215	0.679	11.038	0.174	8.159
P值		0.552	＜0.001	0.499	＜0.001	0.862	＜0.001
注：与同组干预前比较，^aP＜0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 2组NSCLC术后放疗患者癌因性疲乏及放疗症候群比较(x±s，分)

组别	例数	PFS-R		咳嗽症候MSAS		食欲下降症候MSAS
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组	44	5.30±0.77	4.58±0.60^a	2.07±0.28	1.02±0.18^a	1.53±0.28	1.45±0.18
对照组	43	5.35±0.74	5.17±0.65	2.10±0.30	1.78±0.23^a	1.55±0.26	1.47±0.20
t值		0.309	4.401	0.482	17.186	0.345	0.491
P值		0.758	＜0.001	0.631	＜0.001	0.731	0.625
注：与同组干预前比较，^aP＜0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 2组NSCLC术后放疗患者EORTCQLQ-C30评分的比较(x±s，分)

组别	例数	躯体维度		情绪维度		角色维度		认知维度		社会维度
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组	44	65.48±10.27	78.76±11.03^a	66.38±10.27	76.93±10.67^a	68.93±11.20	72.39±10.28^a	64.38±9.84	68.37±10.11^a	69.32±8.27	88.76±9.05^a
对照组	43	65.72±10.73	72.39±10.83^a	65.83±10.83	70.93±11.20^a	69.04±11.02	73.09±10.56^a	65.02±10.17	68.03±10.20^a	70.12±8.73	76.36±9.14^a
t值		0.107	2.717	0.243	2.559	0.214	0.313	0.298	0.156	0.439	6.358
P值		0.915	0.008	0.809	0.012	0.831	0.755	0.766	0.876	0.662	＜0.001
注：与同组干预前比较，^aP＜0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

[1]	李为民, 罗汶鑫. 我国慢性呼吸系统疾病的防治现状[J]. 西部医学, 2020, 32(1): 1-4. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2020.01.001
[2]	NESTLE U, ADEBAHR S, KAIER K, et al. Quality of life after pulmonary stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SBRT): Results of the phase Ⅱ STRIPE trial[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2020, 148: 82-88. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.03.018
[3]	苏春燕, 李兰珍, 顾佳, 等. 黄石市30年3819例肺癌患者心理特点变化趋势分析[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2017, 17(8): 1574-1576, 1580. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SWCX201708045.htm
[4]	中华医学会, 中华医学会肿瘤学分会, 中华医学会杂志社. 中华医学会肺癌临床诊疗指南(2019版)[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2020, 42(4): 257-287. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20200120-00049
[5]	余闽. 自我效能干预联合反馈式呼吸训练对肺癌放疗后患者肺功能与癌因性疲乏的影响[J]. 护理实践与研究, 2020, 17(3): 62-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9676.2020.03.021
[6]	刘艳, 彭伟. 安宁疗护中常用的症状群评估工具[J]. 护理研究, 2019, 33(17): 2983-2986. doi: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2019.17.015
[7]	陈莉, 刘道兰. 中晚期肺癌化疗患者症状群情况及其对患者日常生活、生命质量的影响及干预对策[J]. 癌症进展, 2019, 17(12): 1477-1480, 1488. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-AZJZ201912030.htm
[8]	施惠, 范晓春, 陆肖娴. 基于氧合指数指导下的进阶式肺康复训练在急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的中应用[J]. 医学临床研究, 2019, 36(11): 2225-2227. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2019.11.050
[9]	张燕楠. 综合呼吸功能训练对肺癌患者术后康复的影响[J]. 北华大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 18(6): 784-787. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLYY201706020.htm
[10]	CHEN F, WANG G. Enhanced recovery after surgery for lung cancer patients[J]. Open Med (Wars), 2020, 15: 198-203. doi: 10.1515/med-2020-0029
[11]	吴雨晨, 丁楠楠, 姜变通, 等. 阈值负荷吸气肌训练对呼吸肌功能影响的Meta分析[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2019, 25(10): 1150-1161. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZKLS201910007.htm
[12]	李洁, 王艳红. 综合运动康复训练对慢性阻塞性肺疾病稳定期病人肺功能及运动耐力的影响[J]. 护理研究, 2016, 30(18): 2271-2272. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2016.18.033
[13]	丁柏英, 曾淑超, 郭英杰. 三维适形放疗联合化疗对中晚期食管癌患者预后的影响[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2019, 27(21): 3812-3815. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2019.21.016
[14]	方霖. 三维适形放射治疗Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌的远期疗效[J]. 实用癌症杂志, 2019, 34(12): 1977-1979. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5930.2019.12.016
[15]	DE MOL M, VISSER S, AERTS J, et al. The association of depressive symptoms, personality traits, and sociodemographic factors with health-related quality of life and quality of life in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer: an observational multi-center cohort study[J]. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 431. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06823-3