论文部分内容阅读
目的对比分析3种不同湿化液加入方式在无创通气中的应用效果。方法将2014年2月-10月期间90例接受无创通气治疗的患者随机分为3组,每组30例,A组采用传统水壶加水湿化法进行湿化,B组采用一次性自动给水湿化罐法进行湿化,C组采用输液式加水湿化法进行湿化。对比3组患者湿化效果及湿化相关情况。结果 3组间湿化效果、舒适度评分、续水周期、工作耗时及经济成本比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。C组湿化良好率明显优于A组及B组(P<0.05),而A组与B组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组湿化舒适度评分明显高于A组及B组(P<0.05),而A组与B组差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。C组续水周期及工作耗时明显短于A组及B组(P<0.05),而B组明显短于A组(P<0.05)。同时A组与C组经济成本明显少于B组(P<0.05),而A组与C组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论输液式加水湿化法在无创通气治疗患者的气道湿化治疗中有着良好的治疗效果,值得临床推广应用。
Objective To compare and analyze the application effects of three different wetting fluid methods in noninvasive ventilation. Methods Ninety patients undergoing non-invasive ventilation between February and October 2014 were randomly divided into three groups (n = 30 in each group). Group A was wetted by traditional watering and humidifying methods. Group B was wetted by one-time automatic watering The cans were humidified, and the C groups were wetted by the infusion humidification method. Compare 3 groups of patients with humidification and humidification related situation. Results There were significant differences in humidification effect, comfort score, water renewal period, working time and economic cost between the three groups (P <0.05). The good rate of humidification in group C was significantly better than that in group A and group B (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P> 0.05). The wet comfort scores of group C were significantly higher than those of group A and group B (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P <0.05). Duration of rehydration cycle and labor time in group C were significantly shorter than those in group A and B (P <0.05), while those in group B were significantly shorter than those in group A (P <0.05). At the same time, the economic cost of group A and group C was significantly less than that of group B (P <0.05), while there was no significant difference between group A and group C (P> 0.05). Conclusion Infusion humidification method has good curative effect in airway humidification in patients with noninvasive ventilation, which is worthy of clinical application.