不同雾化吸入法治疗小儿中重度哮喘急性发作的临床比较  

Comparison of Different Atomization Inhalation in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of Severe Asthma in Children

作　　者：阿尔祖古丽.图尔逊 孜拜旦木.艾合买提 

机构地区：[1]新疆伊宁市人民医院儿科,835000

出　　处：《中国继续医学教育》2015年第14期109-109,共1页China Continuing Medical Education

摘　　要：目的探索雾化吸入法实践于哮喘急性发作患儿的医学价值。方法选取我院诊治的55例哮喘急性发作患儿,全部患儿均同意接受研究,27例为对照组接受超声雾化吸入法治疗,28例为观察组接受氧气驱动雾化吸入法治疗,对比实践效果。结果超声雾化吸入法有效率是74.07%,低于氧气驱动雾化吸入法的96.43%。观察组的体征消失时间短于对照组。对照组的反复发作发生率为11.11%。观察组没有出现反复发作的现象。结论氧气驱动雾化吸入法实践于中重度哮喘急性发作患儿更为切实可行。Objective To explore the inhalation law practice in children with acute asthma medical value.Methods55 cases of acute attack of asthma patients were selected in our hospital and all children were agreed to accept the study, 27 cases as control group were treated with ultrasonic atomizing inhalation therapy, 28 cases as the observation group received oxygen driven atomizing inhalation therapy and contrast the practical effect. ResultsThe efficiency of ultrasonic atomization inhalation is 96.43%, which is lower than that of the oxygen driven atomization inhalation method. 74.07%. The signs of the observation group were shorter than the control group. The control group had a recurrent attack rate of 11.11%. The observation group did not appear the phenomenon of recurrent. Conclusion The oxygen inhalation method practice driving in moderate to severe asthma exacerbations in children is more feasible.

关 键 词：超声雾化吸入法 急性发作 氧气驱动雾化吸入法 

分 类 号：R725[医药卫生—儿科]