中国现代药物应用
中國現代藥物應用
중국현대약물응용
Chinese Journal of Modern Drug Application
2015年
21期
260-261,262
,共3页
刘彩红%李福琴%黄云鹏%王秋亚%刘盛楠%李俊艳
劉綵紅%李福琴%黃雲鵬%王鞦亞%劉盛楠%李俊豔
류채홍%리복금%황운붕%왕추아%류성남%리준염
呼吸机相关性肺炎%急诊危重病监护室%组合干预措施%感染率
呼吸機相關性肺炎%急診危重病鑑護室%組閤榦預措施%感染率
호흡궤상관성폐염%급진위중병감호실%조합간예조시%감염솔
Ventilator-associated pneumonia%Emergency intensive care unit%Combined intervention measures%Infection rate
目的:探讨组合干预措施对预防与控制急诊危重病监护室(EICU)患者呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的作用。方法选取EICU收治的67例重症患者,经口气管插管、经鼻插管或气管切开并使用呼吸机通气时间≥48 h患者,其中32例按照干预前作为A 组,35例接受VAP 预防与控制的组合干预措施作为B 组, A组不采取特殊干预措施,观察比较两组患者的感染率。结果 A组呼吸机使用率为34.02%, B组呼吸机使用率为34.42%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组VAP感染率为12.30‰;B组VAP感染率为2.79‰, B组VAP感染率明显低于A组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论目前EICU患者VAP的预防与控制措施有待进一步改进,本研究采取的组合干预措施对预防与控制VAP的发生具有重要意义。
目的:探討組閤榦預措施對預防與控製急診危重病鑑護室(EICU)患者呼吸機相關性肺炎(VAP)的作用。方法選取EICU收治的67例重癥患者,經口氣管插管、經鼻插管或氣管切開併使用呼吸機通氣時間≥48 h患者,其中32例按照榦預前作為A 組,35例接受VAP 預防與控製的組閤榦預措施作為B 組, A組不採取特殊榦預措施,觀察比較兩組患者的感染率。結果 A組呼吸機使用率為34.02%, B組呼吸機使用率為34.42%,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。A組VAP感染率為12.30‰;B組VAP感染率為2.79‰, B組VAP感染率明顯低于A組,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論目前EICU患者VAP的預防與控製措施有待進一步改進,本研究採取的組閤榦預措施對預防與控製VAP的髮生具有重要意義。
목적:탐토조합간예조시대예방여공제급진위중병감호실(EICU)환자호흡궤상관성폐염(VAP)적작용。방법선취EICU수치적67례중증환자,경구기관삽관、경비삽관혹기관절개병사용호흡궤통기시간≥48 h환자,기중32례안조간예전작위A 조,35례접수VAP 예방여공제적조합간예조시작위B 조, A조불채취특수간예조시,관찰비교량조환자적감염솔。결과 A조호흡궤사용솔위34.02%, B조호흡궤사용솔위34.42%,차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。A조VAP감염솔위12.30‰;B조VAP감염솔위2.79‰, B조VAP감염솔명현저우A조,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론목전EICU환자VAP적예방여공제조시유대진일보개진,본연구채취적조합간예조시대예방여공제VAP적발생구유중요의의。
Objective To investigate Effect by combined intervention measures for prevention and control of VAP (ventilator-associated pneumonia) in EICU (emergency intensive care unit).Methods There were 67critical patients in EICU receiving ventilator by orotracheal intubation, nasotracheal intubation or tracheotomy ≥48 h. 32 cases among them were taken as group A before intervention, and 35 cases as group B receiving combined intervention measures for prevention and control of VAP. Group A received no special intervention measures. Infection rates of the two groups were compared.Results The usage rate of ventilator was 34.02% in group A and 34.42% in group B, and the difference had no statistical significance (P>0.05). Group A had VAP infection rate as 12.30 ‰, and that in group B was 2.79 ‰. Group B had much lower VAP infection rate than group A, and their difference had statistical significance (P<0.05).Conclusion Prevention and control measures requires further improvement in EICU patients with VAP. The combined intervention measures in this study contain important significance for preventing and controlling occurrence of VAP.