对比热毒宁与痰热清治疗小儿呼吸道感染的效果差异

摘要

目的 比较热毒宁与痰热清在治疗小儿呼吸道感染疾病上的疗效差异,为总结该疾病有效治疗方法提供参考.方法 收集80例小儿呼吸道感染患儿作为研究对象,随机分为研究组和对照组,各40例.研究组给予热毒宁治疗,对照组选用痰热清治疗方案,比较两组治疗效果及不良反应.结果研究组起效时间、症状恢复时间分别为(37.22±2.21)h、(76.42±10.25)h,均少于对照组的(45.13±1.54)h、(103.61±13.15)h,对比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).研究组总有效率为97.5％,与对照组的95.5％对比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 热毒宁和痰热清均可作为治疗小儿呼吸道感染有效的药物选择,不过相比痰热清,热毒宁见效早,症状消退快,值得临床作为首选药物应用.%Objective To provide reference for treating infantile respiratory infection comparing the efficacy of reduning with that of phlegrnyheatclear in the treatment of infantile reapiratory infection.Methods 80 patients with infantile respiratory infection were collected as study objects and were randomly divided into a study group and a control group,40 for each group.The study group was treated with reduning and the control group phlegmyheatclear.The curative effects and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between these two groups.Results The onset time,symptom-sign disappearance time of the study group were(37.22±2.2 1)h and(76.42±1 0.25)h,which were shorter than those of the control group[(45.13±1.54)h and (103.61±13.15)h],with statistical differences (P＜0.05).The overall effective rate was 97.5％ in the study group and 95.5％ in the control group,with no statistical difference (P＞0.05).Conclusions Both Reduning and phlegmyheatclear in the treatment of infantile respiratory infection are effective.However,Reduning has shorter onset time and make the symptoms disappear erlier than phlegmyheatclear.It can be the first choice in clinical practice.