中国临床实用医学
中國臨床實用醫學
중국림상실용의학
CHINA CLINICAL PRACTICAL MEDICINE
2010年
3期
39-41
,共3页
无创正压通气%有创通气%淹溺%急性呼吸窘迫综合征
無創正壓通氣%有創通氣%淹溺%急性呼吸窘迫綜閤徵
무창정압통기%유창통기%엄닉%급성호흡군박종합정
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation(NIPPV)%Invasive ventilation(Ⅳ)%Drowned%Acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS)
目的 观察比较无创正压通气与有创通气治疗淹溺者并急性呼吸窘迫综合征的治疗效果.方法 63例淹溺并急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者随机分为A、B两组,A组为无创正压通气组,B组为有创通气组,分别给予无创正压通气治疗和有创通气治疗,观察两种通气方法的治疗效果.结果 与治疗前比较机械通气0.5 h、1 h、4 h、12 h后两组pH、PaO2、PaCO2及HR、RR均明显改善(P＜0.05).B组HR、RR在机械通气0.5 h、1 h后下降较A组快,但在机械通气4 h后两组HR、RR变化一致.这与B组气管插管时应用镇静麻醉剂或肌肉松弛剂有关.A组机械通气时间、总住院时间均短于B组(P＜0.05),A组平均住院费用、呼吸机相关肺炎发生率少于B组(P＜0.05),治愈率两组无明显差别.结论 无创正压通气方法和有创通气方法治疗淹溺者并急性呼吸窘迫综合征均有较好的治疗效果,无创正压通气方法优于有创通气方法.
目的 觀察比較無創正壓通氣與有創通氣治療淹溺者併急性呼吸窘迫綜閤徵的治療效果.方法 63例淹溺併急性呼吸窘迫綜閤徵患者隨機分為A、B兩組,A組為無創正壓通氣組,B組為有創通氣組,分彆給予無創正壓通氣治療和有創通氣治療,觀察兩種通氣方法的治療效果.結果 與治療前比較機械通氣0.5 h、1 h、4 h、12 h後兩組pH、PaO2、PaCO2及HR、RR均明顯改善(P＜0.05).B組HR、RR在機械通氣0.5 h、1 h後下降較A組快,但在機械通氣4 h後兩組HR、RR變化一緻.這與B組氣管插管時應用鎮靜痳醉劑或肌肉鬆弛劑有關.A組機械通氣時間、總住院時間均短于B組(P＜0.05),A組平均住院費用、呼吸機相關肺炎髮生率少于B組(P＜0.05),治愈率兩組無明顯差彆.結論 無創正壓通氣方法和有創通氣方法治療淹溺者併急性呼吸窘迫綜閤徵均有較好的治療效果,無創正壓通氣方法優于有創通氣方法.
목적 관찰비교무창정압통기여유창통기치료엄닉자병급성호흡군박종합정적치료효과.방법 63례엄닉병급성호흡군박종합정환자수궤분위A、B량조,A조위무창정압통기조,B조위유창통기조,분별급여무창정압통기치료화유창통기치료,관찰량충통기방법적치료효과.결과 여치료전비교궤계통기0.5 h、1 h、4 h、12 h후량조pH、PaO2、PaCO2급HR、RR균명현개선(P＜0.05).B조HR、RR재궤계통기0.5 h、1 h후하강교A조쾌,단재궤계통기4 h후량조HR、RR변화일치.저여B조기관삽관시응용진정마취제혹기육송이제유관.A조궤계통기시간、총주원시간균단우B조(P＜0.05),A조평균주원비용、호흡궤상관폐염발생솔소우B조(P＜0.05),치유솔량조무명현차별.결론 무창정압통기방법화유창통기방법치료엄닉자병급성호흡군박종합정균유교호적치료효과,무창정압통기방법우우유창통기방법.
Objective To observe and compare the effect of the treatment using NIPPV (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation)or Ⅳ (invasive ventilation)on the drowned with ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome). Methods 63 patients into two groups-group A (NIPPV) and group B (Ⅳ). The effects of the two ventilations wrer obserred. Results pH, PaO2, PaCO2 and HR, RR in the two groups were all improved ( P ＜0.05)after machinery ventilating for 0.5 h,1 h,4 hs and 12 hs. HR and RR in group B dropped faster than those in group A after machinery ventilating for 0.5 h, and 1 h, but consistent for 4 hs. This concerned muscle relaxants or the sedative anesthetics used when intubating in group B. The time of machinery ventilating and the treatment of group A was shorter than thoseof group B ( P ＜ 0.05 ). The average expense of group A was smaller than group B and the pneumonia formation rate of life-support machine in group A was lower, too. Two groups were not obviously different in cure rate. Conclusion NIPPV and Ⅳ have a good treatment result for the drowned with ARDS, but NIPPV is better than Ⅳ.
