论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比经鼻双水平气道正压通气(n Duo PAP)与持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)治疗早产儿呼吸暂停(AOP)的疗效。方法:选取2012年1月~2014年1月在郑州市儿童医院诊断为原发性AOP的38例早产儿,在给予常规护理及药物治疗的基础上,随机给予n Duo PAP(研究组)或NCPAP(对照组)呼吸支持,每组19例;若两种通气方式无效时,则立即给予气管插管呼吸机辅助通气,作为抢救性治疗。结果:研究组显效、总有效率明显高于对照组(P<0.05);两组患儿因治疗无效或病情加重而行气管插管呼吸机辅助通气率,研究组明显低于对照组(P=0.029);两组患儿并发气漏、鼻压伤、颅内出血、腹胀的发生率比较;差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:n Duo PAP通气模式治疗AOP比NCPAP模式更有效,而且安全。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of nasal biplane positive airway pressure (n Duo PAP) and continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in the treatment of apnea (AOP) in preterm infants. Methods: Thirty-eight preterm infants diagnosed with primary AOP in Children’s Hospital of Zhengzhou City from January 2012 to January 2014 were selected and randomly assigned to n Duo PAP (study group) or NCPAP (control group) respiratory support, each group 19 cases; if the two ventilation is invalid, then immediately given endotracheal intubation ventilator assisted ventilation as a rescue treatment. Results: The effective rate of the study group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P <0.05). In the two groups, the ventilation rate of ventilator assisted by tracheal intubation was significantly lower than that of the control group (P = 0.029). The incidence of air leakage, nasal compression, intracranial hemorrhage and abdominal distension in both groups was no significant difference (P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: n Duo PAP ventilation is a more effective and safe AOP than NCPAP.