观察慢性咳嗽经验性治疗在社区医院应用的疗效。

选择2018年3月至2019年2月在中央民族大学医院内科门诊就诊的符合慢性咳嗽诊断标准的患者98例，按照随机数字编码表随机分为：常规治疗组（49例），给予常规治疗，即氨溴索化痰，复方氢右美沙芬止咳治疗；经验性治疗组（49例），在常规治疗基础上加上经验性治疗,即通过询问病史、症状等，采取针对性病因治疗。2组患者均治疗1周。对常规治疗组和经验性治疗组患者的年龄、治疗前与治疗7 d后咳嗽症状积分采用独立样本t检验进行比较；性别和总有效率采用χ²检验进行比较。

常规治疗组和经验性治疗组患者年龄、性别、治疗前咳嗽症状积分等基线资料比较差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。治疗7 d后，经验性治疗组患者咳嗽症状积分与常规治疗组比较明显降低，差异有统计学意义［（2.27±0.64）分 vs （2.67±1.03）分，t=1.141，P=0.003］。治疗7 d后，经验性治疗组治疗总有效率与常规治疗组比较明显增高，差异具有统计学意义（75.5% vs 55.1%，χ²=2.298，P=0.034）。2组患者不良反应包括头晕、头痛、心悸等，但均较为轻微。

慢性咳嗽的经验性治疗在社区医院应用疗效可靠，在条件有限时，可以作为一种替代措施。

To evaluate the efficacy of empirical therapy for chronic cough in a community hospital.

Ninety-eight patients with chronic cough were selected and randomly divided into a conventional therapy group (n=49) and an empirical therapy group (n=49). Both groups were given conventional treatment with ambroxol for diluting sputum and compound dextromethorphan hydrobromide syrup for relieving cough, and the empirical therapy group was additionally given empiric treatment by implementing targeted remedies based on medical history. The treatments in both groups lasted one week.

The cough symptom score in empirical therapy group was significantly reduced compared with that in conventional therapy group (P<0.05). The total effective rate was significantly higher in empirical therapy group than in conventional therapy group (77.5% vs 55.1%, P<0.05).

The empirical therapy for chronic cough in community hospitals is effective and reliable, and can be a substitute in limited conditions.