切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华脑血管病杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (05) : 404 -410. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9248.2025.05.007

临床研究

元认知训练联合西药治疗对缺血性脑卒中患者认知功能和活动能力的影响
刘斌1, 王英歌1, 许笑天2, 肖莉1, 邵修超1, 唐铁钰2,()   
  1. 1 225000 江苏 扬州,扬州大学附属医院康复医学科
    2 225000 江苏 扬州,扬州大学附属医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-28 出版日期:2025-10-01
  • 通信作者: 唐铁钰
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81901084)

Effect of metacognitive training combined with pharmacotherapy on cognitive function and mobility in patients with ischemic stroke

Bin Liu1, Yingge Wang1, Xiaotian Xu2, Li Xiao1, Xiuchao Shao1, Tieyu Tang2,()   

  1. 1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225000, China
    2 Department of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225000, China
  • Received:2025-03-28 Published:2025-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Tieyu Tang
引用本文:

刘斌, 王英歌, 许笑天, 肖莉, 邵修超, 唐铁钰. 元认知训练联合西药治疗对缺血性脑卒中患者认知功能和活动能力的影响[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 404-410.

Bin Liu, Yingge Wang, Xiaotian Xu, Li Xiao, Xiuchao Shao, Tieyu Tang. Effect of metacognitive training combined with pharmacotherapy on cognitive function and mobility in patients with ischemic stroke[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(05): 404-410.

目的

探讨元认知训练联合西药治疗对缺血性脑卒中(IS)患者认知功能和活动能力的影响。

方法

回顾性选取2020年2月至2024年12月扬州大学附属医院康复医学科收治的IS患者,依据纳入排除标准对患者进行筛选后,将患者按照治疗方式分为联合组(常规西药治疗基础上行元认知训练)与对照组(常规西药治疗),对患者临床基本资料应用倾向得分匹配法按1∶1进行筛选,减少混杂因素的影响,最终纳入联合组、对照组患者各26例。在治疗前以及治疗1、2、3个月时,采用蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)量表评估2组患者认知功能,采用改良Barthel指数(MBI)量表评估2组患者日常活动能力,采用匹茨堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)量表评估2组患者睡眠质量,采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量核心问卷(EORTC QLQ-C30)量表评价2组患者生活质量。采用重复测量资料的方差分析比较治疗前后认知功能和日常活动能力变化差异,采用t检验比较2组患者治疗前后睡眠和生活质量差异,并采用χ2检验比较2组疗效差异。

结果

治疗前,2组患者MoCA评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗1、2、3个月后联合组患者MoCA评分[(16.54±3.55)分、(19.85±3.22)分、(22.46±4.07)分]均显著高于对照组[(13.96±3.08)分、(15.54±3.16)分、(19.87±3.54)分],组别和时间的交互作用、时间因素以及组别因素差异均有统计学意义(F交互=3.765,P=0.012;F时间=22.472,P<0.001;F组间=58.201,P<0.001)。治疗前,2组患者MBI评分的比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗1、2、3个月后联合组患者MBI评分[(70.70±9.42)分、(78.58±8.87)分、(84.33±8.61)分]均显著高于对照组[(65.54±8.54)分、(69.67±7.98)分、(74.14±9.33)分],组别和时间的交互作用、时间因素以及组别因素差异均有统计学意义(F=165.208、58.366、231.291,P均<0.001)。治疗前,2组患者PSQI、EORTC QLQ-C30评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05);治疗后联合组患者EORTC QLQ-C30评分显著高于对照组[(62.73±10.49)分 vs (46.20±8.36)分],PSQI得分显著低于对照组[(1.26±0.36)分 vs(2.73±0.49)分],差异均有统计学意义(t=6.284、12.328,P均<0.001)。治疗后联合组患者的优良率显著高于对照组(88.46% vs 50.00%),差异有统计学意义(χ2=9.028,P=0.003)。

结论

元认知训练联合西药治疗可以有效提高IS患者的认知功能和活动能力,并改善患者的睡眠质量及生活质量。

Objective

To investigate the effects of metacognition training combined with pharmacotherapy treatment on cognitive function and mobility in patients with ischemic stroke (IS).

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on IS patients admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University from February 2020 to December 2024. After screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients were divided into two groups according to treatment modality: a combination group (receiving metacognitive training plus pharmacotherapy) and a control group (receiving conventional treatment). Using propensity score matching (1∶1) to minimize confounding factors, 26 patients were included in each group. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), daily living activities with the modified Barthel index (MBI), sleep quality with the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), and quality of life with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Assessments were performed at baseline and after 1, 2, and 3 months of treatment. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare cognitive and mobility outcomes, independent t-tests for sleep and quality of life scores, and chi-square tests for intergroup therapeutic effects.

Results

No significant between-group differences in MoCA scores were observed at baseline (P>0.05). After 1, 2 and 3 months of treatment, the combination group showed significantly higher MoCA scores (16.54±3.55, 19.85±3.22, 22.46±4.07) than the control group (13.96±3.08, 15.54±3.16, 19.87±3.54). The group × time interaction, time effect, and group effect were statistically significant (F=3.765, 22.472, 58.201, respectively; all P<0.05). Similarly, while baseline MBI scores did not differ (P>0.05), the combination group demonstrated significantly higher MBI scores at 1, 2, and 3 months (70.70±9.42, 78.58±8.87, 84.33±8.61) compared to the control group (65.54±8.54, 69.67±7.98, 74.14±9.33), with significant interaction, time, and group effects (F=165.208, 58.366, 231.291, respectively; all P<0.05). Baseline PSQI and EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were comparable (all P>0.05). After treatment, the combination group showed significantly better EORTC QLQ-C30 scores (62.73±10.49 vs 46.20±8.36, t=6.284, P<0.001) and lower PSQI scores (1.26±0.36 vs 2.73±0.49, t=12.328, P<0.001). After treatment, the combination group also had a significantly higher excellent/good response rate (88.46% vs 50.00%, χ2=9.028, P=0.003).

Conclusion

Metacognition training combined with pharmacotherapy can effectively improve the cognitive function, mobility, sleep quality, and quality of life in patients with IS.

表1 2组缺血性脑卒中患者一般临床资料比较
表2 2组缺血性脑卒中患者治疗前后认知功能(MoCA评分)变化情况比较(分,
±s
表3 2组缺血性脑卒中患者治疗前后活动能力(MBI评分)变化情况的比较(分,
±s
表4 2组缺血性脑卒中患者治疗疗效比较[例(%)]
表5 2组缺血性脑卒中患者治疗前、后睡眠质量和生活质量变化情况比较(分,
±s
表6 2组缺血性脑卒中患者不良反应的发生率以及满意度比较[例(%)]
1
代文武, 李兆岚, 贾宁. 元认知疗法与元认知训练的回顾与展望 [J]. 四川精神卫生, 2022, 35(2): 171-177.
2
Miegel F, Rubel J, Dietrichkeit M, et al. Exploring mechanisms of change in the metacognitive training for depression [J]. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2024, 274(3): 739-753.
3
Li Y, Tang J, Ma X, et al. Impact of metacognition on health-related behavior: a mediation model study [J]. J Environ Public Health, 2023, 2023: 6547804.
4
张航瑜, 方维佳. 元认知训练与肿瘤科研究生科研创新能力的关系 [J].基础医学教育, 2025, 27(6): 518-521.
5
王聪, 李晓虹, 刘研, 等. 团体元认知训练治疗难治性精神分裂症患者3例 [J]. 四川精神卫生, 2024, 37(5): 471-474.
6
陈明濠, 谢伟坚, 梅麒, 等. 轻型缺血性脑卒中后认知障碍及其危险因素分析 [J]. 中南医学科学杂志, 2023, 51(1): 136-138.
7
中华医学会神经病学分会, 中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组. 中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2018 [J]. 中华神经科杂志, 2018, 51(9): 666-682.
8
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment [J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2005, 53(4): 695-699.
9
Liu W, Unick J, Galik E, et al. Barthel index of activities of daily living: item response theory analysis of ratings for long-term care residents [J]. Nurs Res, 2015, 64(2): 88-99.
10
Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, et al. The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire [J]. Eur J Cancer, 2018, 100: 8-16.
11
刘鸣, 吴波, 袁强. 我国急性脑卒中临床试验疗效判断方法分析 [J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2004, 4(3): 164-166, 197.
12
Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk TH, et al. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research [J]. Psychiatry Res, 1989, 28(2): 193-213.
13
王振, 陈修琼. MMSE、MOCA量表在评定脑卒中患者认知功能改变中的应用 [J]. 心理月刊, 2020, 15(7): 240.
14
Lopez-Morinigo JD, Ajnakina O, Martínez AS, et al. Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Psychol Med, 2020, 50(14): 2289-2301.
15
Pikouli FA, Moraitou D, Papantoniou G, et al. Metacognitive strategy training improves decision-making abilities in amnestic mild cognitive impairment [J]. J Intell, 2023, 11(9): 182.
16
Chen Q, Sang Y, Ren L, et al. Metacognitive training: a useful complement to community-based rehabilitation for schizophrenia patients in China [J]. BMC Psychiatry, 2021, 21(1): 38.
17
Jahn N, Sinke C, Kayali Ö, et al. Neural correlates of the attention training technique as used in metacognitive therapy - A randomized sham-controlled fMRI study in healthy volunteers [J]. Front Psychol, 2023, 14: 1084022.
18
Kowalski J, Wierzba M, Wypych M, et al. Effects of attention training technique on brain function in high- and low-cognitive-attentional syndrome individuals: regional dynamics before, during, and after a single session of ATT [J]. Behav Res Ther, 2020, 132: 103693.
[1] 王丹, 王昌锋, 王丽, 綦彬, 叶媛媛, 范浩. 慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者认知功能减退与睡眠呼吸暂停程度临床分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(03): 390-394.
[2] 韩秋霞, 朱晗玉, 段颖洁, 田明威, 朱凯怡, 马丽洁, 孙倩美. 维持性血液透析患者单核细胞/高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值和血小板/高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值与脑卒中风险的相关性[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 140-145.
[3] 刘诗彤, 王楠. 肠源性尿毒症毒素在慢性肾脏病患者认知功能障碍发生机制中的作用研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 164-170.
[4] 齐丽霞, 甄瑾, 李敏, 白鹏, 朱润秀, 乔静, 贾慧, 王琳, 张丽仙, 刘斌. 基于单中心的多发性硬化诊疗分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(03): 167-173.
[5] 王晓丽, 王晓媛, 孙洪涛. 老年急性缺血性脑卒中伴房颤患者预后的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 111-116.
[6] 刘佳成, 许晓辉, 杜艳姣, 张云亭, 段智慧. 载脂蛋白E基因多态性对急性缺血性脑卒中后抑郁的影响[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(04): 220-226.
[7] 王珊珊, 王文, 杨启亮, 张文朝, 崔宁宁, 李婷. 虚拟现实技术对脑卒中患者认知和负性情绪影响的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(03): 161-170.
[8] 侯志博, 张苗, 卢洁. 多延迟动脉自旋标记成像在急性缺血性脑卒中灌注评估中的研究进展与临床应用[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 454-460.
[9] 王颖, 杨焱焱, 牛雯晓, 李梦凡, 张金彪. 非体位性阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停与认知功能障碍的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 108-116.
[10] 张莉, 王汉祥. 急性缺血性脑卒中血压管理研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2025, 13(03): 178-182.
[11] 光雪珂, 刘承云, 卢伟琳. 线粒体功能障碍与老年人缺血性脑卒中相关信号通路关系研究进展[J/OL]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2025, 12(01): 41-47.
[12] 邵燕, 吴彩娟, 毛由军, 李冬梅, 王云舟, 郭姣, 朱康. 基于"3P模式"的全方位护理在急性主动脉夹层介入治疗患者中的应用[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2025, 11(04): 229-232.
[13] 丘燕娇, 陈莹, 吴振梅, 钟秋杰, 韩小妍, 李又佳, 罗宋宝, 韩倩倩. 脑心健康管理师介入的营养管理对老年急性缺血性脑卒中患者预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 312-317.
[14] 杨昌浩, 杨雯伊, 纪蒙, 董谦, 胡文立, 鲁明. 急性一氧化碳中毒临床特点及影像学表现[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 228-233.
[15] 肖瑶, 白玉瀛, 陶文丹, 吴波. 心房颤动治疗对认知功能影响的系统评价再评价[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 234-243.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?