| Purpose:To observe the treatment of children with mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumoniae(lung phlegm heat syndrome)on the basis of western medicine treatment,combined with the treatment of internal and external treatment of traditional Chinese medicine,compared with western medicine treatment,the treatment of pediatric mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia,the effectiveness,safety,health economics,and long-term efficacy of the children with mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumoniae(lung phlegm heat syndrome)were evaluated.Material and method:This study selected 30 children with mycoplasma pneumonia pneumonia(lung phlegm heat syndrome)diagnosed and treated in the pediatric ward of the Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Dalian Children’s Hospital from September 2017 to September 2018.30 children in Dalian Children’s Hospital were selected as the control group and treated with Western medicine;30 children of the Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine are treated group.On the basis of Western medicine treatment,combined with internal oral of Pediatric Qingfei Mixture and external application of Fuxiong Powder.Observation period is 10 days,record and compare the main symptoms and signs scores(fever,cough,sputum,asthma,lung breath)、secondary syndrome scores(General spitting,mental irritability,red face,cyanotic lips,dry mouth,yellow urine,nasal dryness,lip red)、total scores of disease syndrome before treatment,on the 3rd,7th,and 10 th day after treatment and the onset time of main symptoms and signs、secondary syndrome、laboratory examination 、effective rate、adverse reaction rate、cost、treatment days、 combined medication and long-term follow-up results of the two groups of children.Results:1.There was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05)(Including age,gender,height,weight,course of disease,main symptoms and physical signs,secondary syndrome scores,total scores 、Single symptom and physical syndrome and laboratory test results),and the two groups were comparable.2.Comparison of main symptoms and signs,secondary syndrome scores and total scores of disease syndrome:the main symptoms、secondary symptoms、physical signs and total scores of the treatment group were significantly lower than those before treatment(P<0.05);the main syndrome and physical signs of the treatment group were significantly lower than the control group on the 7th day after treatment(P<0.05);the scores of the treatment group were significantly lower than the control group on the third day after treatment(P<0.05);the total scores of the diseased patients in the treatment group were significantly lower than those before and after treatment(P<0.05).3.Comparison of individual symptoms and physical signs:the main symptoms,secondary symptoms and physical signs scores of the treatment group were significantly lower than those before treatment(P<0.05);the fever and cough scores of the control group were significantly lower than those before treatment(P<0.05),the sputum and asthma scores were significantly lower than the pre-treatment(P<0.05)on the 10 th day after treatment,the scores of auscultation scores were significantly lower than those before treatment on the 7th day after treatment(P<0.05),the scores of the second symptom scores after treatment were not significantly different from those before treatment(P>0.05).The fever score of the treatment group was significantly lower than that of the control group on the third day after treatment(P<0.05);the cough,sputum,asthma,lung breath scores in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group on the 7th day after treatment(P<0.05);the scores of dry,yellow urine and nasal dryness on the third day after treatment were significantly lower than those in the control group(P<0.05);The other symptoms were not significantly different from the control group(P>0.05);the scores of the secondary symptoms on the 7th and 10 th day after treatment were not significantly different from the control group(P>0.05).4.gComparison of single symptom and physical onset time:the onset time of the main symptoms of the treatment group was significantly lower than that of the control group(P<0.05);the onset time of lung breath was significantly shorter than that of the control group(P<0.05);the secondary symptoms were dry,yellow urine,nasal dryness,the onset time of lipred was significantly lower than that of the control group(P<0.05),and the onset time of other symptoms was not significantly lower than that of the control group(P>0.05).5.Comparison of laboratory test results:there were no significant differences in the indexes of chest radiograph,myocardial enzymes and blood routine between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05);after treatment,the normal number of WBC,LY,NE and CRP in the blood group was higher than that in the control group(P>0.05);the number of normal cases of WBC,NE,LY and CRP in the treatment group was significantly higher than that before treatment(P<0.05);the number of normal cases of WBC,NE and CRP increased after treatment in the control group,but the difference was not significant(P>0.05).There was no difference between the normal number of LY and the treatment(P>0.05).6.The safety comparison showed :the incidence of adverse reactions in the treatment group was 23.3%,which was less than 40.0% in the control group,but P>0.05.The difference was not statistically significant.7.Comparison of the overall efficacy of the disease after treatment:the cure rate was 90.0% in the treatment group and 70% in the control group,the cure rate in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group(P<0.05);the number of treatment days in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P<0.05),and the treatment cost was lower than that in the control group,but the difference was not significant(P>0.05).8.Combined medication: the number of treatment combinations and medications accounted for 46.67% of the total number,significantly less than the control group of 73.33,P <0.05,the difference was statistically significant.9.Comparison of follow-up:at the first follow-up,5 patients in the treatment group developed respiratory diseases,9 patients in the control group developed respiratory diseases,five patients in the treatment group who developed respiratory infection after discharge from hospital were less than 6 patients in the control group,but P>0.05,the difference is not statistically significant;at the second follow-up,4 patients in the treatment group developed respiratory diseases,and 6 patients in the control group developed respiratory diseases,the difference between the two groups was not significant(P>0.05);at the third follow-up,no respiratorydisease occurred in the treatment group;two patients in the control group developed respiratory disease,and one of them was diagnosed with pneumonia.Conclusion:1.Treatment of children with pneumonia mycoplasma pneumonia(lung phlegm heat syndrome)by internal and external treatment of traditional Chinese medicine can improve the cure rate,shorten the treatment time,and reduce the cost of treatment.2.Treatment of children with pneumonia mycoplasma pneumonia(lung phlegm heat syndrome)by internal and external treatment of traditional Chinese medicine can significantly alleviate the main symptoms and signs,secondary syndrome scores,improve the overall condition of the disease,shorten the onset of the main symptoms,secondary diseases and signs.3.Treatment of children with pneumonia mycoplasma pneumonia(lung phlegm heat syndrome)by internal and external treatment of traditional Chinese medicine can reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions and has high safety.4.Treatment of children with pneumonia mycoplasma pneumonia(lung phlegm heat syndrome)by internal and external treatment of traditional Chinese medicine out-of-hospital follow-up of respiratory diseases has a low recurrence rate and long-term efficacy. |
PDF Full Text Request