压力控制法治疗老年肺内源性呼吸窘迫综合征的量化护理干预  

Quantitative nursing intervention for elder patients with pulmonary respiratory distress syndrome when received pressure control treatment

作　　者：公衍翠[1] 

机构地区：[1]山东省临沂市沂水中心医院护理部,276400

出　　处：《中国实用护理杂志》2015年第21期1582-1585,共4页Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing

摘　　要：目的 研究基于量化评估策略下的护理干预对压力控制法治疗老年肺内源性呼吸窘迫综合征效果的影响.方法 将在我院就诊的80例肺内源性呼吸窘迫综合征患者纳入研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各40例,观察组接受基于量化评估策略下的护理干预,对照组患者接受常规护理干预,比较2组患者的肺泡氧合功能、血流动力学指标、血清炎性反应因子含量及不良反应的发生情况.结果 （1）肺泡氧合功能.观察组患者治疗后动脉血氧分压、氧合指数及动脉血二氧化碳分压水平分别为（91.61±12.09）、（367.34±43.39）和（34.46±5.57） mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133kPa）,与同期对照组的（83.33±11.21）、（318.34±21.43）和（44.52±5.33） mmHg相比差异均有统计学意义,P＜ 0.05.（2）血流动力学指标.观察组治疗后心率及中心动脉压分别为（95.15±9.02）次/min和（10.21±2.12） cmH2O（1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa）,与同期对照组的（99.85±9.15）次/min及（12.45±2.21） cmH2O比较差异有统计学意义,P＜0.05.（3）血清炎性反应因子.观察组治疗后的白细胞介素6、单核细胞趋化因子蛋白1及肿瘤坏死因子α水平分别为（118.08±15.32） ng/L、[21.54±3.54） μg/L和（0.61±0.02）tμg/L,均显著低于同期对照组的（194.58±22.48） ng/L、（39.33±5.43）μg/L和（1.41±0.04） μg/L,差异有统计学意义,P＜0.05.（4）观察组量化评估比较.观察组治疗后的量化评估结果分布情况显著优于治疗前,x2=10.516,差异有统计学意义,P＜0.01.（5）不良反应.观察组不良反应的发生率为7.5％（3/40）,显著低于对照组的25.0％（10/40）,x2=4.501,P＜0.05,差异有统计学意义.结论 基于量化评估策略下的护理干预有助于改善肺泡氧合功能,稳定血流动力学指标,缓解炎性反应,降低不良反应.Objective To study the effect of nursing intervention based on quantitative evaluation strategy on treatment effect of elder patients with pulmonary respiratory distress syndrome when received pressure control treatment.Methods 80 cases elder patients with pulmonary respiratory distress syndrome in our hospital were enrolled and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group,there were 40 cases in each group.The observation group received nursing intervention based on quantitative evaluation strategy,while the control group received routine nursing intervention.Then alveolar oxygen function,hemodynamic index,serum inflammatory factor levels and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Results ① Alveolar oxygenation function：arterial blood oxygen partial pressure,oxygenation index ratio and arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure level in the observation group was （91.61±12.09）,（367.34±43.39） and （34.46±5.75） mmHg （1 mmHg=0.133 kPa） respectively,which was significant different than those in the control group respectively,they were （83.33±11.21）,（318.34±21.43） and （44.52±5.33） mmHg,P＜0.05.②Hemodynamic index：heart rate central venous pressure in the observation group after the treatment was （95.15±9.02） beats/min and （10.21±2.12） cmH2O （1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa） respectively,which was significant different than those in the control group respectively,they were （99.85±9.15） beats/min and （12.45±2.21） cmH2O,P ＜ 0.05.③Serum inflammatory cytokines：serum interleukin-6,monocyte chemotactic factor protein-1,tumor necrosis factor-α levels in the observation group were lower than those in the control group （118.08±15.32 vs 194.58±22.48） mg/L,（21.54±3.54 vs 39.33±5.43,0.61±0.02 vs 1.41±0.04） μg/L,P＜0.05.④Quantitative evaluation comparison：after treatment,observation group patients with mild was obviously higher than that of before treatment （47.50％ vs.20.00％）,severe patients was lower than t

关 键 词：呼吸窘迫综合征 成人 压力控制法 量化评估 护理干预 

分 类 号：R473.5[医药卫生—护理学]