当代医药论丛
噹代醫藥論叢
당대의약론총
Contemporary Medicine Forum
2015年
2期
180-181
,共2页
急危重症患者%急诊呼吸阶梯性疗法%呼吸复苏%效果
急危重癥患者%急診呼吸階梯性療法%呼吸複囌%效果
급위중증환자%급진호흡계제성요법%호흡복소%효과
critically ill patients%emergency%stepwise respiratory%therapeutic effect
目的:探讨用急诊呼吸阶梯性疗法对急危重症患者进行呼吸复苏治疗的临床效果。方法:对2012年12月~2013年12月期间我院收治的100例急危重症患者的临床资料进行回顾性研究。我们将这100例患者随机分为观察组和对照组,每组各有50例患者。我院使用传统的呼吸治疗方式对对照组患者进行呼吸复苏治疗,使用急诊呼吸阶梯性疗法对观察组患者进行呼吸复苏治疗。治疗结束后,比较两组患者呼吸的复苏率和从治疗开始至呼吸恢复稳定的时间。结果:观察组患者呼吸的复苏率明显高于对照组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。观察组患者从治疗开始至呼吸恢复稳定的时间明显短于对照组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。结论:用急诊呼吸阶梯性疗法对急危重症患者进行呼吸复苏治疗具有效果好、起效快的优点。此方法可作为临床上对急危重症患者进行呼吸复苏治疗的首选方法。
目的:探討用急診呼吸階梯性療法對急危重癥患者進行呼吸複囌治療的臨床效果。方法:對2012年12月~2013年12月期間我院收治的100例急危重癥患者的臨床資料進行迴顧性研究。我們將這100例患者隨機分為觀察組和對照組,每組各有50例患者。我院使用傳統的呼吸治療方式對對照組患者進行呼吸複囌治療,使用急診呼吸階梯性療法對觀察組患者進行呼吸複囌治療。治療結束後,比較兩組患者呼吸的複囌率和從治療開始至呼吸恢複穩定的時間。結果:觀察組患者呼吸的複囌率明顯高于對照組患者,二者相比差異具有顯著性(P<0.05)。觀察組患者從治療開始至呼吸恢複穩定的時間明顯短于對照組患者,二者相比差異具有顯著性(P<0.05)。結論:用急診呼吸階梯性療法對急危重癥患者進行呼吸複囌治療具有效果好、起效快的優點。此方法可作為臨床上對急危重癥患者進行呼吸複囌治療的首選方法。
목적:탐토용급진호흡계제성요법대급위중증환자진행호흡복소치료적림상효과。방법:대2012년12월~2013년12월기간아원수치적100례급위중증환자적림상자료진행회고성연구。아문장저100례환자수궤분위관찰조화대조조,매조각유50례환자。아원사용전통적호흡치료방식대대조조환자진행호흡복소치료,사용급진호흡계제성요법대관찰조환자진행호흡복소치료。치료결속후,비교량조환자호흡적복소솔화종치료개시지호흡회복은정적시간。결과:관찰조환자호흡적복소솔명현고우대조조환자,이자상비차이구유현저성(P<0.05)。관찰조환자종치료개시지호흡회복은정적시간명현단우대조조환자,이자상비차이구유현저성(P<0.05)。결론:용급진호흡계제성요법대급위중증환자진행호흡복소치료구유효과호、기효쾌적우점。차방법가작위림상상대급위중증환자진행호흡복소치료적수선방법。
Objective: To analyze and evaluate the clinical effect of acute and critical stepwise respiratory use emergency patients, so as to provide scientific theoretical basis for the treatment of diseases. Methods: in our hospital in 100 cases of acute critically ill patients admitted in 2012 December -2013 year in December as the research object, and were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, each group has 50 patients. The control group using the traditional way of patients with respiratory therapy, and experimental group were treated by stepwise breath of treatment, observed and compared between the two groups of patients with different treatment of disease after treatment effect. Results: Compared from two aspects of resuscitation rate and respiratory stability time, patients in the experimental group were significantly better than the control group. Further comparative analysis showed that, the differences among the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Respiratory therapy compared to the traditional way, for the treatment of the use of stepwise breath of the acute and critical patients treatment, the effect is more significant. Therefore, this method is worth spreading and using in clinic.