论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较经鼻间歇正压通气与经鼻持续正压通气对新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征患儿的临床疗效和安全性。方法:选取2014年6月至2015年6月于我院儿科ICU以新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征为诊断的患儿94例,行随机数字表法分为两组:对照组47例,予经鼻持续正压通气治疗;实验组47例,予经鼻间歇正压通气治疗。观察两组患者治疗前后动脉血气分析、吸氧时间、住院时间以及临床疗效和并发症发生率。结果:经治疗后,实验组患儿临床疗效明显优于对照组,表现为:实验组pH值、PO_2水平高于对照组(P<0.05),PaCO_2水平低于对照组(P<0.05);实验组X线评分低于对照组(P<0.05),吸氧时间、住院时间低于对照组(P<0.05);实验组治疗成功率高于对照组,治疗失败率低于对照组(P<0.05);实验组并发症发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:经鼻间歇正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床疗效和安全性均较经鼻持续正压通气更高。
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation on neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: From June 2014 to June 2015, 94 pediatric patients diagnosed as neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in our pediatric ICU were randomly divided into two groups: control group (47 cases) Continuous positive pressure ventilation treatment; experimental group of 47 cases, to nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation treatment. Arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen inhalation time, hospital stay, clinical efficacy and complication rates were observed before and after treatment. Results: After treatment, the clinical efficacy of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group. The results showed that: the experimental group had higher pH and PO 2 level than the control group (P <0.05) and PaCO 2 level was lower than that of the control group (P <0.05). The X-ray score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group (P <0.05), oxygen inhalation time and hospital stay were lower than those of the control group (P <0.05). The success rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group <0.05). The complication rate of experimental group was lower than that of control group (P <0.05). Conclusion: The clinical efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome are higher than that of nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation.