国际医药卫生导报
國際醫藥衛生導報
국제의약위생도보
INTERNATIONAL MEDICINE & HEALTH GUIDANCE NEWS
2011年
19期
2362-2365
,共4页
双水平气道正压%机械通气%重症肺炎
雙水平氣道正壓%機械通氣%重癥肺炎
쌍수평기도정압%궤계통기%중증폐염
BiPAP%Mechanical ventilation%Severe pneumonia
目的 探讨双水平气道正压( BiPAP)机械通气治疗重症肺炎的临床效果.方法 将2008年1月-2009年1月间在我院住院治疗的重症肺炎患者60例随机分为观察组和对照组,对照组给予常规治疗措施,观察组在常规治疗基础上给予BiPAP机械通气.结果 治疗后观察组患者在PaO2[( 71.46±2.25)mmHg vs.(63.88±2.34) mmHg]、SpO2[( 93.87±2.52) mmHg vs.(88.23±2.35) mmHg]方面明显高于对照组,两组比较差异具有显著性(P＜0.05).治疗后观察组患者HR明显低于对照组,两组比较差异具有显著性(P＜ 0.05).治疗后观察组患者在pH方面与对照组比较差异无显著性(P＞0.05).治疗后观察组患者在住院时间、气管插管率及死亡率方面明显少于对照组,两组比较差异具有显著性(P＜ 0.05).两组患者均未见明显的不良反应.结论 BiPAP机械通气治疗重症肺炎的临床效果好,不良反应少,值得推广应用.
目的 探討雙水平氣道正壓( BiPAP)機械通氣治療重癥肺炎的臨床效果.方法 將2008年1月-2009年1月間在我院住院治療的重癥肺炎患者60例隨機分為觀察組和對照組,對照組給予常規治療措施,觀察組在常規治療基礎上給予BiPAP機械通氣.結果 治療後觀察組患者在PaO2[( 71.46±2.25)mmHg vs.(63.88±2.34) mmHg]、SpO2[( 93.87±2.52) mmHg vs.(88.23±2.35) mmHg]方麵明顯高于對照組,兩組比較差異具有顯著性(P＜0.05).治療後觀察組患者HR明顯低于對照組,兩組比較差異具有顯著性(P＜ 0.05).治療後觀察組患者在pH方麵與對照組比較差異無顯著性(P＞0.05).治療後觀察組患者在住院時間、氣管插管率及死亡率方麵明顯少于對照組,兩組比較差異具有顯著性(P＜ 0.05).兩組患者均未見明顯的不良反應.結論 BiPAP機械通氣治療重癥肺炎的臨床效果好,不良反應少,值得推廣應用.
목적 탐토쌍수평기도정압( BiPAP)궤계통기치료중증폐염적림상효과.방법 장2008년1월-2009년1월간재아원주원치료적중증폐염환자60례수궤분위관찰조화대조조,대조조급여상규치료조시,관찰조재상규치료기출상급여BiPAP궤계통기.결과 치료후관찰조환자재PaO2[( 71.46±2.25)mmHg vs.(63.88±2.34) mmHg]、SpO2[( 93.87±2.52) mmHg vs.(88.23±2.35) mmHg]방면명현고우대조조,량조비교차이구유현저성(P＜0.05).치료후관찰조환자HR명현저우대조조,량조비교차이구유현저성(P＜ 0.05).치료후관찰조환자재pH방면여대조조비교차이무현저성(P＞0.05).치료후관찰조환자재주원시간、기관삽관솔급사망솔방면명현소우대조조,량조비교차이구유현저성(P＜ 0.05).량조환자균미견명현적불량반응.결론 BiPAP궤계통기치료중증폐염적림상효과호,불량반응소,치득추엄응용.
Objective To explore the efficacy of mechanical ventilation with BiPAP for severe pneumonia.Methods 60 patients with severe pneumonia who had been hospitalized during January 2008 to January 2009 were randomly divided into study group and control group.The control group received conventional therapy and the study group received mechanical ventilation with BiPAP in addition to conventional therapy.Results Levels of PaO2 and SpO2 were significantly higher in the study group than in control group after treatment ( P ＜ 0.05 ).Heart rate was markedly lower in the study group than in the control group ( P ＜ 0.05 ).PH level did not differ significantly between the two groups ( P ＞ 0.05 ).Length of hospital stay was shorter,and rate of tracheal intubation and death rate were significantly lower in the study group than in the control group ( P ＜ 0.05 ).No obvious adverse reactions were found in both groups.Conclusions Mechanical ventilation with BiPAP is more effective in the treatment of severe pneumonia.It has fewer adverse reactions and is worth popularizing.
