中国实用医刊
中國實用醫刊
중국실용의간
Chinese Journal of Practical Medicine
2015年
24期
60-61
,共2页
慢性阻塞性肺疾病%呼吸衰竭%无创正压通气%治疗效果
慢性阻塞性肺疾病%呼吸衰竭%無創正壓通氣%治療效果
만성조새성폐질병%호흡쇠갈%무창정압통기%치료효과
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease%Respiratory failure%Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation%Treatment
目的 针对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)伴呼吸衰竭的患者展开临床治疗研究,了解无创正压通气方式治疗的优越性.方法 选取近年收治的COPD伴呼吸衰竭患者共90例,随机分为对照组与观察组.对照组采用常规方式治疗,观察组采用无创正压通气治疗,比较两组患者身体机能改善程度、住院情况以及治疗效果.结果 两组患者治疗前各项指标比较差异未见统计学意义(P＞0.05),但观察组治疗后变化更明显;对照组住院时间＞3周,观察组＜2周;对照组插管次数比例为26.67％,观察组为6.67％;对照组治疗总有效率为82.22％,观察组为95.56％;两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 无创正压通气治疗能够有效在短时间内改善患者临床症状,缩短住院时间并降低患者住院期间需要插管治疗概率,提升治疗安全性,适合临床推广使用.
目的 針對慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)伴呼吸衰竭的患者展開臨床治療研究,瞭解無創正壓通氣方式治療的優越性.方法 選取近年收治的COPD伴呼吸衰竭患者共90例,隨機分為對照組與觀察組.對照組採用常規方式治療,觀察組採用無創正壓通氣治療,比較兩組患者身體機能改善程度、住院情況以及治療效果.結果 兩組患者治療前各項指標比較差異未見統計學意義(P＞0.05),但觀察組治療後變化更明顯;對照組住院時間＞3週,觀察組＜2週;對照組插管次數比例為26.67％,觀察組為6.67％;對照組治療總有效率為82.22％,觀察組為95.56％;兩組比較差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05).結論 無創正壓通氣治療能夠有效在短時間內改善患者臨床癥狀,縮短住院時間併降低患者住院期間需要插管治療概率,提升治療安全性,適閤臨床推廣使用.
목적 침대만성조새성폐질병(COPD)반호흡쇠갈적환자전개림상치료연구,료해무창정압통기방식치료적우월성.방법 선취근년수치적COPD반호흡쇠갈환자공90례,수궤분위대조조여관찰조.대조조채용상규방식치료,관찰조채용무창정압통기치료,비교량조환자신체궤능개선정도、주원정황이급치료효과.결과 량조환자치료전각항지표비교차이미견통계학의의(P＞0.05),단관찰조치료후변화경명현;대조조주원시간＞3주,관찰조＜2주;대조조삽관차수비례위26.67％,관찰조위6.67％;대조조치료총유효솔위82.22％,관찰조위95.56％;량조비교차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05).결론 무창정압통기치료능구유효재단시간내개선환자림상증상,축단주원시간병강저환자주원기간수요삽관치료개솔,제승치료안전성,괄합림상추엄사용.
Objective For patients with COPD combined with respiratory failure associated with clinical research to expand treatment, to understand the superiority of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.Methods Selected 90 cases of COPD combined with respiratory failure in recent years, they were randomly divided into control group and observation group.The control group was given conventional treatment, and the observation group was given noninvasive positive pressure ventilation therapy.The degree of physical function, hospitalization and efficacy were compared between the two groups.Results The index of the two groups before treatment had no significant difference (P ＞ 0.05), but after the treatment, the change of relative index in observation group became more apparent;the hospitalization time of control group time was more than three weeks, the observation group was less than two weeks;the ratio of intubation in the control group was 26.67％, the observation group was only 6.67％;the total effective rate in the control group was 82.22％, while the observation group reached 95.56％.The differences were significant between the two groups (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation therapy can effectively improve the clinical symptoms in a short time, shorter hospital stays and reduced need for intubation treatment during hospitalization chance to improve treatment safety, suitable for clinical use.
