论文部分内容阅读
目的：比较双水平正压通气与持续气道正压通气在新生儿II型呼吸衰竭中的治疗效果。方法整群选取该院2012年5月—2014年6月之间救治的新生儿II型呼吸衰竭患儿共52例，随机分为双水平正压通气治疗组与持续气道正压通气治疗组，对其二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)、氧分压(PaO2)和氧合指数(OI)测量值进行统计分析。结果在PaO2指标上的测量值方面，在1 h、12 h、24 h，两种治疗方法差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05））；在48、72 h时刻，两种治疗方法差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。在PaCO2、OI指标上的测量值方面，两种治疗方法数值差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。双水平正压通气治疗组的插管有创呼吸支持率为15.4%，持续气道正压通气组插管有创呼吸支持率为34.6%，两者间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论双水平正压通气治疗组的插管有创呼吸支持率要比持续气道正压通气组低，值得临床推广使用。“,”Objective To compare the curative effect on neonatal respiratory failure type II with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) or continuous positive airway ventilation. Methods Total 52 cases neonatal inpatients with neonatal respiratory failure type II from May 2012 to June 2014 were selected and were divided randomly into bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation treatment group and continuous positive airway ventilation treatment group. The measurements of carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) and oxygenation index (OI) were used for statistical analysis. Results In terms of the mea-sured PaO2 index, with 1h, 12h, 24h, the difference was not significant (P>0.05);while at the 48h and 72h moment, the difference was significant (P0.05) in the values of the two treatment methods. Intubation invasive breathing support rate was 15.4% in bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) venti-lation treatment group, Intubation invasive breathing support rate was 34.6% in continuous positive airway ventilation treatment group. There was statistical significance between the two,P<0.05. Conclusion Intubation invasive breathing support rate of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation treatment group was lower than that of continuous positive airway ventilation treatment group, and it is worthy of clinical application.