中国血液净化

中国血液净化 ›› 2018, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (12): 810-813.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2018.12.005

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

维持性血液透析患者透析中运动康复退出率的多中心调查

王颖1,甘良英1,梁俊卿1,马迎春2,王秀荣2,赵晓林3,任建伟4,高艳4,曾文5,范晓艳5,徐明成6,郭宏艳6,檀敏1,左力1,王梅1   

  1. 1北京大学人民医院肾内科
    2中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院血液净化中心
    3胶州胶东白求恩血液净化中心
    4北京航空总医院血液净化中心
    5北京市垂杨柳医院血液净化中心
    6北京市西城区展览路医院血液净化中心
  • 收稿日期:2018-03-22 修回日期:2018-09-10 出版日期:2018-12-12 发布日期:2018-12-19
  • 通讯作者: 甘良英 ganliangying@yahoo.com E-mail:wangying19753344@sina.com
  • 基金资助:

    首都医学发展科研基金课题，课题编号：2014-3-4142
    中国慢性肾脏病透析患者中血管钙化的患病率及对患者生存率的预测价值研究基金批准号2014-Z-26
    北京市科学技术委员会首都临床特色应用研究支持项目项目编号:Z131107002213122
    优化尿毒症患者管理模式的研究基金批准号：201502010 课题号：0001

The dropout rate of intradialysis exercise rehabilitation in patients with maintenance hemodialysis: a muliti-center survey

  • Received:2018-03-22 Revised:2018-09-10 Online:2018-12-12 Published:2018-12-19

PDF

794

摘要： 【摘要】目的 了解维持性血液透析患者(maintenance hemodialysis，MHD)透析中运动康复的退出情况，为临床更好的开展和管理MHD 患者透析中运动康复提供依据。方法对“运动康复对维持性血液透析患者生活质量影响”多中心随机对照研究中的入选患者进行问卷调查，了解透析中运动康复的退出率及原因。结果① 6 家血液透析中心入组患者202 例(运动组99 例，非运动组103 例)；一年期退出研究29 例(占实际入组患者总数14.4%)。②运动组退出21 例(21.2%)，对照组退出8 例(7.8%)，2 组退出率比较有统计学差异(χ2=7.422，P=0.006)。总体退出原因中客观原因占82.8%，主观原因占17.2%。③退出与未退出患者的透析龄(U=1835.500，Z=-2.311，P=0.021)、跌倒评分(U=2043.500，Z=-2.618，P =0.009)比较有统计学差异；睡眠评分、家庭支持、近1 个月并发症总数等比较无统计学差异。结论透析中运动康复退出率不高，运动与非运动组均以客观原因退出为主，适度的透析中运动安全性好，但患者教育及系统管理对长期开展临床透析中运动康复非常必要。

关键词: 维持性血液透析, 透析中, 运动康复, 退出率

Abstract: 【Abstract】Purpose The status of quo and dropout of intradialysis exercise in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients was investigated in order to provide better strategies for the clinical management of exercise rehabilitation in MHD patients. Methods Questionnaire were designed to ask patients to participate in a multicenter randomized controlled study called "exercise rehabilitation on the quality of life in MHD patients" to investigate the situation and cause of dropout of intradialytic exercise. Results ①A total of 202 patients (99 in exercise group and 103 in non-exercise group) were recruited from 6 hemodialysis centers, and 29 of them (14.4%) dropped out of intradialytic exercise during the study. ②Twenty-one patients (21.2%) in the exercise group and 8 patients (7.8%) in the control group dropped out of intradialytic exercise (χ2=7.422 and P=0.006 between the two groups). In the dropout causes, objective causes accounted for 82.8% and subjective causes accounted for 17.2%. ③ The differences were statistically significant in dialysis age ( U = 1835.500, Z = -
2.311, P=0.021) and the score of falling down to the ground (U=2043.500, Z=-2.618, P=0.009) between dropout patients and non-dropout patients. There were no statistical differences in sleep score, family support and total number of complications in a recent month. Conclusion The overall dropout rate of intradialytic exercise rehabilitation was lower. Objective causes accounted mainly for the dropout both in exercise group and non-exercise group. Moderate intensity of intradialysis exercise was safe. Education and systematic management of the patient are necessary to the implementation of long-term intradialytic exercise rehabilitation.

Key words: maintenance hemodialysis, intradialysis, exercise rehabilitation, dropout rate.