经鼻间歇正压通气与经鼻持续正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床疗效比较  

Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome of Newborn

作　　者：程光清[1] 付扬喜[1] 张森山[1] 蔡凯乾[1] 马晓蕾[1] 陈群[1] 谢崇 

机构地区：[1]安康市中心医院新生儿科,陕西安康725000 [2]西安交通大学第二附属医院小儿外科,陕西西安710000

出　　处：《现代生物医学进展》2016年第34期6738-6741,6621,共5页Progress in Modern Biomedicine

基　　金：陕西省科技攻关项目(2012C2);安康市科技攻关计划项目(12AK02-26)

摘　　要：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 airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome of newborn. Methods： 94 cases of newborn with respiratory distress syndrome in our hospital from June 2014 to June 2015 were selected and randomly divided into two groups with 47 cases in each group, the control group was treated by Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and the experiment group 47 cases was treated by nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. The arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen inhalation time, hospital stay, clinical curative effect and complication rate were compared between two groups before and after treatment. Results： After treatment, the clinical efficacy of experiment group was significantly better than that of the control group. The level of pH and PO2 in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group （P〈0.05）, the PaCO2 level was lower than the control group （P〈0.05）, the time of oxygen inhalation and the length of stay in hospital were lower than those in the control group （P〈0.05）. The success rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, the treatment failure rate was lower than that of the control group （P 〈 0.05）. The incidence rate of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The clinical efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation were better than the nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.

关 键 词：经鼻间歇正压通气 经鼻持续正压通气 新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征 动脉血气分析 

分 类 号：R722[医药卫生—儿科]