欢迎访问《现代生物医学进展》编辑部！

目的：对比两种不同的四联疗法对幽门螺杆菌根除失败后的根除率，选择可以有效弥补传统三联疗法的幽门螺杆菌根除失败措施的四联疗法。方法：选择2010 年8 月到2012 年8 月期间在我院住院治疗的幽门螺杆菌根除失败后患者90 例作为研究对象。随机分为实验组和对照组，实验组的患者采取序贯疗法，对照组的患者采取标准四联疗法。对比两组的根除率以及临床疗效。结果：实验组患者的根除率为86.7%，对照组患者根除率为51.0%；实验组患者的临床总有效率为95.6%，对照组的临床有效率为 77.8%；实验组的不良反应的总发生率为4.4%，对照组不良反应总发生率为20.0%。两组比较差异明显，P 均＜0.05，具有统计学意义。结论：序贯疗法对幽门螺杆菌根除失败后的根除率以及疗效高于标准四联疗法。

英文摘要:

Objective:To compare the curative effects of two quadruple therapies on eradication rates after Helicobacter Pylori eradication failure and to select a quadruple therapy that make up the failed Helicobacter Pylori eradication with traditional triple therapy.Methods:90 patients who have failed to eradicate Helicobacter Pylori and received the treatment in our hospital from August 2010 to August 2012 were selected as the research objects, and were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group. The patients in the experimental group were adopted the sequential therapy, while patients in the control group adopted the standard quadruple therapy. Eradication rates and clinical curative effects of the two groups were compared.Results:The eradication rate of patients in the experimental group was 86.7%, while that in the control group was 51.0%; the clinically curative rate of patients in the experimental group was 95.6%, while that in the control group was 77.8%; the occurrence rate of adverse reactions of patients in the experimental group was 4.4%, while that in the control group was 20.0%. The comparison between the two groups was obvious, with P<0.05, which was of statistical significance.Conclusion:The eradication rate after Helicobacter Pylori eradication failure and the curative effect of sequential therapy were higher than those of the standard quadruple therapy.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader