摘要
目的对比分析人工鼻和呼吸湿化治疗仪(AIRVO)应用于重症监护室人工气道患者临床效果。方法选择我院ICU收治的不同类型人工气道患者113例,其中52例使用人工鼻(对照组)行气道湿化,另外61例使用AIRVO(观察组)行气道湿化,对比分析两组患者临床疗效。结果观察组患者呛咳发生率、痰液黏稠度因湿化改变程度、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率较对照组改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组平均每住院日气道湿化单项费用低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论人工鼻和AIRVO应用于重症监护室不同气道类型患者均能达到较好的气道湿化效果,但相比较AIRVO气道湿化效果更为显著,可根据临床时机选择使用或者交替使用,临床效果更佳。
Objective To analyze and compare the clinical effect of artificial nasal respiratory humidification（AIRVO） in patients with artificial airway in intensive care unit. Methods 113 different types of artificial airway patients in our hospital were treated in ICU cases, 52 cases of artificial nose（control group） for airway humidification, 61 cases using AIRVO respiratory humidification treatment（observation group） for airway humidification, comparative analysis of two groups of patients with clinical curative effect. Results Patients in the observation group the incidence of cough, sputum viscosity due to wet change, degree of ventilator-associated pneumonia（VAP） incidence rate compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant（P〈0.05）. In the observation group, the average daily airway humidification was lower than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant（P〈0.01）. Conclusion Artificial nose and breathe AIRVO of wetting therapeutic apparatus used in the intensive care unit patients with different types of airway can achieve good effect of airway moist, but compare AIRVO breathing to moist therapy apparatus airway moist effect is more significant, can be used according to the clinical use timing or alternate, clinical effect is better.
出处
《中国继续医学教育》
2016年第35期120-122,共3页
China Continuing Medical Education
关键词
人工鼻
呼吸湿化治疗
人工气道
气道湿化
Artificial nose
Respiration and humidification treatment
Artificial airway
Airway moist
