Role of disturbance coefficient in monitoring and treatment of cerebral edema in patients with cerebral hemorrhage

Table 1 Comparison of general data between the two groups, mean ± SD

Information	EG (n = 80)	CG (n = 80)	t/χ2 value	P value
Average age (years)	63 ± 12.5	62 ± 12.1	0.032	0.974
Sex ratio (male/female)	47/33	51/29	0.421	0.516
GCS score	10.7 ± 3.4	10.5 ± 3.1	0.389	0.698
Hematoma volume (mL)	32.8 ± 25.8	33.5 ± 23.3	−0.167	0.867

EG: Experimental group; CG: Control group; GCS: Glasgow coma scale.

Table 2 Comparison of mean daily use of mannitol and days of mannitol administration between the two groups, mean ± SD

Group	CG (n = 80)	EG (n = 80)	t value	P value
Average daily use of mannitol	362.7 ± 117.7	283.1 ± 93.6	4.882	0.000
Course	14.8 ± 5.2	11.8 ± 4.2	3.888	0.000

EG: Experimental group; CG: Control group.

Table 3 Comparative analysis of complications between the experimental and control groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Pulmonary infection	Electrolyte disturbance	Renal function damage	Stress ulcer
EG	80	18 (22.5)	6 (7.5)	2 (2.5)	15 (18.8)
CG	80	20 (25)	30 (37.5)	20 (25)	16 (20)
χ2 value		0.138	20.645	17.075	0.040
P value		0.710	0.000	0.000	0.841

EG: Experimental group; CG: Control group.

Table 4 Comparative analysis of prognosis between the experimental and control groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Good	Fair	Poor
EG	80	32 (40)	36 (45)	12 (15)
CG	80	20 (25)	26 (32.5)	34 (42.5)

EG: Experimental group; CG: Control group.