目的：探讨阿奇霉素治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床效果。方法将我中心收治的68例社区获得性肺炎患者，随机分为对照组和观察组。对照组采用头孢呋辛治疗，观察组采用阿奇霉素治疗。比较两组的治疗效果，治疗前后肺部指标改善情况及不良反应发生情况。结果对照组治疗总有效率79.4%，观察组总有效率97.1%。观察组总有效率显著高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察组发热、咳嗽、咳痰消失时间显著早于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察组胸部影像明显吸收时间、血常规恢复正常时间显著早于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。对照组不良反应发生率为17.6%。观察组不良反应发生率14.7%。观察组与对照组不良反应发生率经统计学分析，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论阿奇霉素治疗社区获得性肺炎疗效显著优于头孢呋辛，主要临床症状及生化指标改善情况优于头孢呋辛治疗，细菌学转归显著优于头孢呋辛，使用方便，不良反应少，值得临床推广应用。%Objective To study the clinical effect of azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. Methods Sixty-eight cases with community acquired pneumonia admitted in our community health service station were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group. The patients in the control group were treated with cefuroxime, while the patients in the observation group were treated with azithromycin. The treatment effect, improvement of pulmonary indexes before and after the treatment and adverse reactions of two groups were compared. Results The total effective rate of the control group was 79.4%, while that of the observation group was 97.1%. The total effective rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The fever, cough and sputum disappear time of the observation group were significantly earlier than those of the control group, the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05). The obvious absorption time of chest imaging and blood routine examination recovery time of the observation group were significantly earlier than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the control group was 17.6%, while that in the observation group was 14.7%. There was not significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups(P > 0.05). Conclusion The curative effect, improvement of major clinical symptoms and biochemical indicators and outcome of bacteriology of azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia were significantly better than those of cefuroxime, and it is easy to use and has less adverse reactions, and is worthy of clinical application.
展开▼
