机构地区:[1]首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院北京市心肺血管疾病研究所北京市大血管疾病诊疗研究中心心外科危重症中心,100029 [2]首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院心脏外科,100029
出 处:《中华胸心血管外科杂志》2017年第2期81-86,共6页Chinese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
基 金:公益性行业科研专项项目(201402009)
摘 要:目的研究对StanfordA型主动脉夹层(AAD)手术拔管后的患者,预防性应用无创正压通气(NPPV)对拔管后低氧、循环不稳定等不良事件的效果。方法选取2015年12月至2016年4月,心脏外科因AAD入院,术后拔除气管插管符合纳入标准的40例患者,使用RandA1.0软件随机分为两组,每组20例,分别应用预防性NPPV和常规面罩氧疗处理。NPPV前2h参数设置:吸气压(IPAP)14-16cmH2O(1cmH2O=0.098kPa),呼气压(EPAP)6-8cmH2O,氧浓度(FiO2)0.35-0.55;2—8h降低参数设置:IPAP10~12cmH2O,EPAP4cmH2O;8h后撤除并常规氧疗。氧疗参数设置:流量6~10L/min,FiO2 0.35-0.55。对比研究两组在治疗后2、8、24h、3天的临床效果及再次气管插管率等。结果与对照组相比,NPPV组氧分压、氧合指数在治疗后2h[94.7(89.7,100.1)mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa)对84.5(78.7,87.1)mmHg,P〈0.05;(192.7±31.2)mmHg对(167.0±18.9)mmHg,P〈0.05]、8h[99.1(90.3,132.8)mmHg对86.3(82.3,95.6)mmHg,P〈0.05;198.2(180.5,246.2)mmHg对172.5(164.7,191.2)mmHg,P〈0.05]、24h[(100.0±18.9)mmHg对(87.3±12.9)mmHg,P〈0.05;(197.5±36.8)mmHg对(170.1±29.8)mmHg,P〈0.05]、3天[98.2(87.4,110.5)mmHg对86.8(79.4,89.6)mmHg,P〈0.05;(193.2±37.1)mmHg对(164.4±23.8)mmHg,P〈0.05]均明显提高,同样时间点的呼吸频率减慢;治疗后24h、3天心率、平均动脉压下降;治疗后3天二氧化碳分压降低,左心室射血分数升高。NPPV组肺膨胀不全发生率较低、住院时间更短。结论AAD拔管后早期预防性应用NPPV可改善氧合指数,一定程度改善心功能、防治肺不张,缩短住院时间。Objective To assess the efficacy of the prophylactic de-escalation use of noninvasive positive pressure venti- lation(NPPV) in improvement of oxygenation following extubation after stanford type A aortic dissection. Methods 40 pa- tients recovering from the stanford type A aortic dissection operation in the Center for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital between December 2015 and April 2016, and meet the inclusion criterion after extubation, were investigated. The pa- tients were random divided into 2 groups with RandA1.0 software, each group contained 20 patients : NPPV with mask vs. tra- ditional oxygen treatment with mask. NPPV initial 2 h (started from extubation) settings: inspiratory pressure (IPAP) of 14 - 16 cmH2O, expiratory pressure(EPAP) of 6 - 8 cmH2 O, the fraction of inspired oxygen( FiO2 ) of 0. 35 - 0. 55. 2 - 8 h the parameters of setting were decreased : IPAP 10 - 12 cmH2O, EPAP 4 emil20. After 8 h the NPPV was finished and the oxygen treatment instead. The oxygen treatment settings: the flux inhalation of oxygen was 6 - 10 L/min, and FiO2 was adjusted to 0.35 - 0.55. Make a comparison with the two groups in the clinical effect at 2 h, 8 h, 24 h, 3 days, and to compare their re- intubation rate. Results PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 were higher in the prophylactic NPPV group compared to oxygen treatmentgroup after2 h [94.7(89.7, 100.1) mmHgvs. 84.5(78.7, 87.1) mmHg, P 〈0.05. (192.7 ±31.2) mmHgvs. (167.0± 18.9) mmHg, P〈0.05], 8 h[99.1(90.3, 132.8) mmHgvs. 86.3(82.3, 95.6) mmHg, P〈0.05. 198.2(180.5, 246.2) mmHg vs. 172.5(164.7, 191.2) mmHg, P 〈0.053,24 hi (100.0± 18.9) mmHg vs. (87.3 ±12.9) mmHg, P 〈 0.05.(197.5±36.8) mmHgvs.(170.1 ±29.8) mmHg, P〈0.05] and3 days[98.2(87.4, 110.5)mmHg vs. 86.8 (79.4, 89.6) mmHg, P〈0.05.(193.2±37.1) mmHgvs.(164.4±23.8) mmHg, P〈0.05], and respiratory rate was lower in the NPPV group at the same time. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were lower in t
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...