【摘要】 目的观察不同血糖监测随访方式对门诊胰岛素治疗患者血糖达标率的影响。方法选取我院内分泌科门诊胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿患者。随机分为强化组35例(每周一次电话及门诊随访)和对照组35例(每月一次门诊随访),随访3个月,观察两组的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)达标情况。结果强化组与对照组各失访7例和6例(=0.094,P=1.000),差异无统计学意义。两组随访后的A1C为(7.94±1.74)%vs(7.73±1.07)%,差异无统计学意义(t=-0.541,P=0.591)。糖化血红蛋白随访后<7%达标率强化组高于对照组(53.57%vs 24.14%=5.207,P=0.031),并且其低血糖事件发生率低于对照组(17.85%vs 44.83%=4.796,P=0.045)。患者对治疗满意度评分两组间无差异[(93.50±3.17)vs(92.76±2.94),t=-0.915,P=0.364]。结论利用多种方式灵活开展糖尿病患者血糖监测随访,可以及时对患者的治疗和饮食运动方案进行调整,提高患者血糖达标率,减低低血糖事件发生率,为患者提供更方便、优质的医疗服务。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the different follow-up methods on glycemia of outpatients using insulin. Methods Randomly assigned type 2 diabetic patients who were treated with insulin to strength group 35 cases( followed up by phone call and face-to-face once a week) and control group 35 cases( followed up by face-to-face once a month). After 3 months,analysis the changes of A1C of each group. Results Strength group lost 7 patients and control group lost 6 patients( = 0. 094,P = 1. 000). The A1C level were( 7. 94±1. 74) vs( 7. 73±1. 07) in each group( t =-0. 541,P = 0. 591). After followed-up,the A1C were reduced to < 7% in 53. 57% of strength group,and in 24. 14% of control group( P = 0. 031),as well as lower incidence of hypoglycemic events was found in strength group( 17. 85% vs. 44. 83%, = 4. 796,P = 0. 045). In the end,each group gived same score for the different follow-up[( 93. 50±3. 17) vs( 92. 76±2. 94),t =-0. 915 P = 0. 364]. Conclusion We should use different follow-up methods to monitor our patients glycemia,in order to adjust patient’s diet and exercise plan timely,help the patients reaching their A1C goal,lower the incidence of hypoglycemic events rate and give them more convenience and excellent service.更多还原