目的 研究頭孢哌酮聯(lián)合舒巴坦治療腎盂腎炎的有效性、安全性以及評(píng)價(jià)兩方案的生存質(zhì)量。方法 按納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)選取?？谑腥嗣襻t(yī)院收治的100例腎盂腎炎患者，隨機(jī)分成治療組和對(duì)照組，每組各50例患者，治療組采用頭孢哌酮聯(lián)合舒巴坦治療，對(duì)照組采用左氧氟沙星治療，觀察兩組臨床療效及復(fù)發(fā)率，并觀察不良反應(yīng)情況；同時(shí)，采用生存質(zhì)量綜合評(píng)定問卷（GQOLI-74）對(duì)患者生存質(zhì)量進(jìn)行評(píng)定。結(jié)果 在臨床療效方面，治療組總有效率為90%，無復(fù)發(fā)；對(duì)照組總有效率為56%，復(fù)發(fā)2例，復(fù)發(fā)率為4%。在安全性方面，治療組的不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率為18%，對(duì)照組的不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率為20%，不良反應(yīng)率的差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。在生存質(zhì)量方面，治療組與對(duì)照組在認(rèn)知功能、婚姻與家庭、住房、社區(qū)服務(wù)和生活環(huán)境等5個(gè)測(cè)量因子數(shù)值無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義差異，其他測(cè)量因子數(shù)值具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異（P<0.05），生存質(zhì)量總體評(píng)價(jià)治療組優(yōu)于對(duì)照組（P<0.05）。結(jié)論 相比于左氧氟沙星，頭孢哌酮聯(lián)合舒巴坦治療腎盂腎炎療效更好，建議將頭孢哌酮聯(lián)合舒巴坦治療腎盂腎炎作為優(yōu)先考慮的治療方案。

Objective To study the effectiveness, safety and quality of survival of cefoperazone sodium combined with sulbactam in the treatment of pyelonephritis. Methods According to the inclusion criteria, 100 cases of patients with pyelonephritis were selected and randomly divided into the treatment group and control group with no statistical difference. Each group had 50 cases. The treatment group was treated with cefoperazone combined sulbactam, control group was treated with levofloxacin. The clinical curative effect and the recurrence rate of the two groups were observed, and the adverse reaction conditions were observed too. At the same time, the quality of life of patients was evaluated by using the comprehensive evaluation questionnaire (GQOLI-74). Results In terms of clinical effectiveness, the total effective rate of treatment group was 90%, with no recurrence; the total effective rate of control group was 56%, and the recurrence rate was 4%. In terms of clinical safety, the incidence of adverse reactions was 18% in treatment group, the incidence of adverse reactions was 20% in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of adverse reactions. In terms of quality of survival, five measuring factors including cognitive function, marriage and family, housing, community services and living environment of the treatment group and control group had no statistically significant difference, and other measurement factors had statistically difference (P<0.05). Overall evaluation of the quality of life was better than that of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with levofloxacin, cefoperazone combined with sulbactam has better clinical effectiveness in the patients with pyelonephritis. Cefoperazone sulbactam is suggested as the preferred treatment.