经鼻持续正压通气治疗近足月儿呼吸窘迫症的疗效观察  

Effect of Continuous Positive Nasal Pressure Ventilation on the Treatment of Respiratory Distress in Children with Near Term

作　　者：王会战 Wang Huizhan(Guangdong Huizhou Huiyang Sanhe Hospital,Huizhou Guangdong 516000)

机构地区：[1]惠州市惠阳三和医院,广东惠州516000

出　　处：《黑龙江医药》2020年第3期510-512,共3页Heilongjiang Medicine journal

基　　金：惠州市科技计划项目(项目编号:20150803)。

摘　　要：目的:探讨经鼻持续正压通气(NCPAP)治疗近足月儿呼吸窘迫症的疗效。方法:回顾分析2017年5月-2019年6月我院收治的70例近足月儿呼吸窘迫症(NRDS)患儿临床资料,按数字随机法分为观察组和对照组,各35例。对照组以经鼻间歇正压通气治疗(NIPPV),观察组以NCPAP治疗,对比两组效果及安全性。结果:两组住院时间和吸氧时间对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗前后两组Pa O2、Pa CO2和p H变化无显著差异(P>0.05);两组疗效比较无显著差异(P>0.05);两组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:以NCPAP和NIPPV治疗足月儿NRDS均存在良好效果,两者在吸氧时间和住院时间无明显差别,但NCPAP更适用于临床推广应用。Objective:To investigate the efficacy of Continuous Positive Nasal Pressure Ventilation(NCPAP)in the treatment of respiratory distress in near-term infants.Methods:The clinical data of 70 cases of near-term infantile Respiratory Distress Syndrome(NRDS)admitted to our hospital from May 2017 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.The control group was treated with NIPPV,and the observation group was treated with NCPAP.The efficacy and safety of the two groups were compared.Results:There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay and oxygen intake time(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in PaO 2,PaCO 2 and pH between the two groups before and after treatment(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two groups(P>0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:NCPAP and NIPPV have a good effect in the treatment of NRDS in the full month.There is no significant difference in the duration of oxygen inhalation and hospital stay between them.NCPAP is convenient for clinical application.

关 键 词：经鼻持续正压通气 足月儿呼吸窘迫症 安全性 

分 类 号：R725.6[医药卫生—儿科]