国际麻醉学与复苏杂志   2021, Issue (7): 0-0
    
新疆地区疼痛患者并发焦虑抑郁的相关性调查
徐桂萍, 杨惠鸿, 喇宏玲, 陈楠, 阿里木江·司马义1()
1.新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院麻醉科
Association of anxiety and depression with pain in patients in Xinjiang area
 全文:
摘要:

目的了解新疆地区疼痛患者合并焦虑抑郁的发病情况,为新疆地区疼痛患者的治疗提供理论依据。方法 采用随机抽样的方法,选取年龄20~80岁的门诊患者,调查人员采用疼痛数字评分法(Numerical Rating Scale, NRS)对患者进行 疼痛程度调查,将NRS评分≥1分的患者定义为疼痛患者,共纳入不同程度疼痛的患者1 012例。采用焦虑自评量表(Self⁃Rat⁃ ing Anxiety Scale, SAS)和抑郁自评量表(Self⁃Rating Depression Scale, SDS)进行焦虑情况和抑郁情况的评定,使用电刺激仪进 行痛阈和耐痛阈的测定。记录所有患者年龄、性别比等一般情况及疼痛部位、程度、持续时间等。SAS评分≥50分表示存在焦 虑状态,SDS评分≥53分表示存在抑郁状态。根据SAS评分和SDS评分分别将患者进行分组[焦虑组(361例)、非焦虑组(651 例),抑郁组(306例)、非抑郁组(706例),焦虑抑郁组(193例)、焦虑非抑郁组(102例)、抑郁非焦虑(36例)、非焦虑非抑郁组 (221例)],分析比较上述相关指标。结果焦虑组患者年龄、NRS评分、女性患者占比、慢性疼痛占比高于非焦虑组(P< 0.05),抑郁组患者NRS评分、女性患者占比、慢性疼痛占比高于非抑郁组(P<0.05),中度疼痛患者和重度疼痛患者SAS评分及 SDS评分高于轻度疼痛患者(P<0.05),男性患者痛阈、耐痛阈高于女性(P<0.05)。焦虑抑郁组患者NRS评分高于焦虑非抑郁 组、抑郁非焦虑组、非焦虑非抑郁组,焦虑非抑郁组患者及抑郁非焦虑组患者NRS评分高于非焦虑非抑郁组患者(P<0.05)。其 余指标差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,女性、慢性疼痛、中度疼痛是疼痛患者合并焦虑的独 立危险因素,而女性、慢性疼痛、中度及重度疼痛是疼痛患者合并抑郁的独立危险因素。结论女性、慢性疼痛、中度[和 (或)重度]疼痛是疼痛患者合并焦虑和(或)抑郁的独立危险因素。

关键词: 疼痛; 焦虑; 抑郁; 危险因素
Abstract:

Objective To understand the incidence of anxiety and depression in pain patients in Xinjiang area, so as to pro⁃ vide theoretical evidence for the treatment of pain patients in Xinjiang area. Methods According to the random sampling method, outpatients aged between 20 and 80 years old were selected. Their pain was evaluated through the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS); those with≥1 point were set as pain patients, and 1 012 patients with different degrees of pain were included. The Self⁃Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self⁃Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate anxiety and depression. The pain threshold and pain tolerance threshold were measured using an electrical stimulator. Their age, sex and other general information as well as the location, degree and duration of pain were recorded. SAS score ≥50 indicates the presence of anxiety, SDS score≥53 indicates the presence of depression. According to SAS score and SDS score, the patients were divided into anxiety group (361 cases), non⁃anxiety group (651 cases), depres⁃ sion group (306 cases), non⁃depression group (706 cases), anxiety and depression group (193 cases), anxiety and non⁃depression group (102 cases), depression and non⁃anxiety group (36 cases), and non⁃anxiety and non⁃depression group (221 cases). Results The anxi⁃ ety group presented increase in age, NRS score, the proportion of female patients and the proportion of chronic pain, compared with those in the non⁃anxiety group (P<0.05). The depression group presented increases in NRS score, the proportion of female patients and the proportion of chronic pain than those in the non⁃depressed group (P<0.05). Patients with moderate and severe pain showed higher SAS and SDS scores than those with mild pain (P<0.05). The pain threshold and pain tolerance threshold were higher in men than wom⁃en (P<0.05). The anxiety and depression group showed higher NRS scores than the other three groups, and patients in the anxiety and depression group and the non⁃anxiety and depression group presented higher NRS scores than those in the non⁃anxiety and non⁃depres⁃ sion group (P<0.05). Other indicators demonstrated no statistical significance (P>0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that female, chronic pain and moderate pain were independent risk factors for pain patients with anxiety. Female, chronic pain, moderate and severe pain were independent risk factors for depression in pain patients. Conclusions Female, chronic pain and moderate and (or) severe pain were independent risk factors for pain patients with anxiety and (or) depression in pain patiens.

Key words: Pain; Anxiety; Depression; Risk factor