本文選題：阻塞性睡眠呼吸暫停 + Auto-CPAP��； 參考：《昆明醫(yī)科大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：=6.71;P0.00001]及[MD=0.25;95%CI(0.00,0.50);Z=1.95;P=0.05]),其余亞組結果均顯示兩種模式對OSAHS治療無明顯差異。1.2 Epworth 嗜睡量表(Epworth Sleepiness Scale,ESS)總體結果顯示Auto-CPAP較Fixed-CPAP改善了治療ESS,兩者間有顯著差異[MD=-0.38;95%CI(-0.46,-0.29);Z=8.59;P0.00001],其中在治療前 AHI 處于20～30亞組中,Fixed CPAP較Auto-CPAP更能改善治療后ESS值[MD=0.76;95%CI(0.33,1.20);Z=3.42;P=0.0006],在治療前 AHI 處于 30～40 亞組及40～50亞組中 Auto-CPAP較Fixed CPAP改善了患者治療后ESS([MD =-0.50;95%CI(-0.61,-0.40);Z=9.60;P0.00001]及[MD=-0.30;95°%%CI(-0.50,-0.11);Z=3.10;P=0.002])。2.依從性對比總體結果顯示Auto-CPAP較Fixed CPAP治療后依從性較好,兩者間有顯著差異[MD=0.23h/夜;95%CI(0.10,0.35);Z=3.42;P=0.0006],其中20AHI≤30亞組及30AHI≤40亞組中提示Auto-CPAP較Fixed CPAP患者提高患者治療依從性([MD=0.52;95%CI(0.38,0.66);Z=7.24;P0.00001]及[MD=0.20;95%CI(0.14,0.26);Z=6.70;P0.0001]),其余亞組兩者對患者治療依從性無明顯差異影響。3.生活質(zhì)量對比結果顯示Auto-CPAP與Fixed CPAP對OSAHS患者治療后睡眠呼吸暫停生活質(zhì)量指數(shù)(Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index,SAQLI)、功能評估性睡眠問卷(Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, FOSQ)、美國醫(yī)學結局研究組的36 項問卷簡表精力方面(Mos 36-item short-form health survey Vitality,SF-36 Vitality )差異均無統(tǒng)計學意義([MD=0.01 ;95%CI(-0.08,0.09);Z=0.14;P=0.89]、[MD=-0.13;95%CI(-0.66,0.41);Z=0.46;P=0.65]及[MD=-0.39;95%CI(-1.52,0.75);Z=0.67;P=0.50])。[結論]Auto-CPAP與Fixed CPAP相比較,Auto-CPAP提高了患者的治療后ESS,提高了患者治療的依從性,對患者治療后AHI無明顯差異;生活質(zhì)量方面,兩種模式對OSAHS患者治療后SAQLI.FOSQ.SF-36 Vitality均無明顯差異。
[Abstract]:The results of other subgroups showed that there was no significant difference between the two models in the treatment of OSAHS. The overall results of Epworth Sleepiness ScaleESS showed that Auto-CPAP improved the treatment of ESSs compared with Fixed-CPAP, and there was a significant difference between the two subgroups [MD-0.3895CI (-0.46- 0.29) Z8.59P0.00001]. 30浜氱粍涓，

本文編號：2107948