http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
진정수면제 중독 환자의 처방과에 따른 처방 및 임상양상 비교
김도민 ( Do Min Kim ),박원빈 ( Won Bin Park ),임용수 ( Yong Su Lim ),김진주 ( Jin Joo Kim ),장재호 ( Jae Ho Jang ),장지용 ( Jee Yong Jang ),양혁준 ( Hyuk Jun Yang ),이근 ( Geun Lee ) 대한임상독성학회 2014 대한임상독성학회지 Vol.12 No.2
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare prescription patterns and clinical features according to clinical departments in sedative-hypnotic intoxication. Methods: This was a retrospective study of histories, substances of poisoning, acquisition routes, clinical courses, and outcomes of patients treated for acute intoxication in a single emergency medical center from January, 2011 to December, 2013. Results: A total of 769 patients were treated for acute intoxication, 281 patients ingested sedative hypnotics during the study period. Among 281 patients, 155 patients were prescribed by psychiatric department and 80 patients were prescribed by non-psychiatric department. Benzodiazepines were more likely to be prescribed by psychiatrists, and zolpidem was preferred by non-psychiatrists (p<0.001). Non-psychiatrists were more likely to prescribe short acting benzodiazepines than psychiatrists (p<0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the clinical outcomes, including prevalence of admission to ICU, ventilator care, and length of stay in ICU. In patients prescribed by non-psychiatrists, there were more patients prescribed without psychiatric diagnosis and diagnosed as major depression disorder after hospitalization. Conclusion: To promote rational prescribing of sedative hypnotics, proper psychiatric evaluation should be performed before prescribing, and educational programs including the contents of interactions and side effects of sedative hypnotics are needed.