中国医药科学
中國醫藥科學
중국의약과학
China Medicine and Pharmacy
2015年
14期
183-185
,共3页
双水平无创正压通气%慢性阻塞性肺疾病%Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭%临床效果
雙水平無創正壓通氣%慢性阻塞性肺疾病%Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭%臨床效果
쌍수평무창정압통기%만성조새성폐질병%Ⅱ형호흡쇠갈%림상효과
Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation%Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease%TypeⅡ respiratory failure%Clinical effect
目的 探讨双水平无创正压通气(BiPAP)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)合并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的临床疗效.方法 根据是否在常规治疗的基础上结合双水平无创 BiPAP 呼吸机治疗,将54例COPD 合并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者分为观察组(27例)和对照组(27例).比较两组患者的治疗效果、血气分析结果及生命体征的变化等指标.结果 经治疗,观察组血气指标、心率、呼吸频率的改善水平,显著优于对照组(P<0.05);观察组的平均住院时间也短于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).两组患者的总有效率、气管插管率和病死率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 双水平无创呼吸机对于慢性阻塞性肺疾病合并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭在临床操作中表现出良好的有效性和安全性,值得临床使用.
目的 探討雙水平無創正壓通氣(BiPAP)對慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)閤併Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的臨床療效.方法 根據是否在常規治療的基礎上結閤雙水平無創 BiPAP 呼吸機治療,將54例COPD 閤併Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者分為觀察組(27例)和對照組(27例).比較兩組患者的治療效果、血氣分析結果及生命體徵的變化等指標.結果 經治療,觀察組血氣指標、心率、呼吸頻率的改善水平,顯著優于對照組(P<0.05);觀察組的平均住院時間也短于對照組,兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).兩組患者的總有效率、氣管插管率和病死率差異無統計學意義(P>0.05).結論 雙水平無創呼吸機對于慢性阻塞性肺疾病閤併Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭在臨床操作中錶現齣良好的有效性和安全性,值得臨床使用.
목적 탐토쌍수평무창정압통기(BiPAP)대만성조새성폐질병(COPD)합병Ⅱ형호흡쇠갈적림상료효.방법 근거시부재상규치료적기출상결합쌍수평무창 BiPAP 호흡궤치료,장54례COPD 합병Ⅱ형호흡쇠갈환자분위관찰조(27례)화대조조(27례).비교량조환자적치료효과、혈기분석결과급생명체정적변화등지표.결과 경치료,관찰조혈기지표、심솔、호흡빈솔적개선수평,현저우우대조조(P<0.05);관찰조적평균주원시간야단우대조조,량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).량조환자적총유효솔、기관삽관솔화병사솔차이무통계학의의(P>0.05).결론 쌍수평무창호흡궤대우만성조새성폐질병합병Ⅱ형호흡쇠갈재림상조작중표현출량호적유효성화안전성,치득림상사용.
Objective To explore the effect of bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation (BiPAP) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated with typeⅡrespiratory failure.Methods A total of 54 patients with COPD complicated with type Ⅱ respiratory failure were selected, and divided into treatment group(27 patients) and control group(27 patients) according to whether or not used noninvasive BiPAP ventilation therapy on the basis of conventional treatment. Therapeutic effect, the result of blood gas analysis and vital signs were compared between two groups after treatment.Results After treatment, the improvement of blood gas index, heart rate and respiratory frequency in treatment group were better than control group; the average hospitalization time in treatment group was shorter than control group, there was a significant difference between two groups (P<0.05). However, when the total effective rate, the rate of tracheal intubation and the mortality were compared, there was no significant difference between two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion BiPAP is safe and effective on treating patients with COPD complicated with type Ⅱ respiratory failure, which is worthy of clinical use.
