摘要
目的对比人工鼻和呼吸湿化治疗仪(AIRVO)治疗人工气道患者的临床疗效。方法研究抽取2015年3月—2016年10月收治的80例人工气道患者,采用人工鼻方法的40例患者为对照组,采用呼吸湿化治疗仪(AIRVO)的40例患者为观察组,随后对两组患者的临床疗效进行比对。结果观察组痰液黏稠度Ⅱ度比例高于对照组,VAP发生率和呛咳发生率低于对照组,数据间经比对产生统计学意义。结论呼吸湿化治疗仪(AIRVO)对人工气道患者进行治疗效果良好,而临床中可依据临床时机选择应用。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of artificial nose and respiratory humidification apparatus （AIRVO） in patients with artificial airway. Methods 80 cases of patients with artificial airway treated in our hospital from March 2015 to October 2016 were selected with 40 cases of artificial nose in the control group, 40 cases of respiratory humidification treatment instrument （AIRVO） in the observation group and then the clinical curative effect of two groups was compared. Results The rate of patients with Ⅱ degree sputum density in observation group was significantly higher than the control group, the incidence of VAP and cough was lower than that of the control group, with statistical significance. Conclusion The treatment of respiratory humidification treatment instrument （AIRVO） to patients with artificial airway is effective, and can be applied clinically according to the clinical condition.
出处
《中国继续医学教育》
2017年第10期132-134,共3页
China Continuing Medical Education
关键词
人工鼻
呼吸湿化治疗仪(AIRVO)
人工气道
临床疗效
artificial nose
respiratory humidification therapeutic apparatus （AIRVO）
artificial airway
clinical efficacy
