不同方式雾化吸入β2受体激动剂治疗支气管哮喘中重度急性发作的疗效比较

Comparison of Different Methods of β2 agonist inhalation in treating moderate and severe bronchial asthma

目的比较三种雾化吸入方法（空气压缩泵射流、氧气射流和超声雾化吸入）给予β2受体激动剂治疗支气管哮喘中、重度急性发作的疗效和安全性。方法将95例哮喘中、重度急性发作患者按不同雾化吸入方法随机分为以下三组：空气压缩泵射流雾化吸入组（A组，32例）、氧气射流雾化吸入组（B组，32例）、超声雾化吸入组（C组，31例）。各组均在相同常规治疗的基础上，吸入相同剂量的万托林溶液。监测三组患者用药前与用药后不同时间点最大呼气流量（PEF）和动脉血气，同时进行症状评分。结果A组、B组的临床疗效均优于C组，组间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），A组与B组临床疗效比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论空气压缩泵射流雾化吸入和氧气射流雾化吸入均比超声雾化吸入更适合于哮喘中、重度急性发作患者的救治。

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating moderate and severe bronchial asthma by different methods of β2 agonist inhalation. Methods 95 patients with moderate and severe asthma were divided into 3 groups：compressed-air jet nebulization group（ n = 32 ）, oxygen-driven jet nebulization group （n = 32）and the ultrasonic nebulization group （n = 31 ）. Each patient was given the conventional therapy, and the patients in each nebulization group inhaled 5 mg Ventolin,The peak expiratory flow （PEF） was measured at different time points before and after inhalation. Arterial blood gas and symptoms were also observed. Results After 30 min, 1 h and 2 h treatment, the clinical efficacy rates of compressed-air jet nebulization group and oxygen-driven jet nebulization group was better than that of the ultrasonic nebulization group （P 〈 0.05 ）, respectively. But there were no significant differences of clinical efficacy rates between compressed-air jet nebulization group and oxygen-driven jet nebulization group. Conclusion Compared with ultrasonic nebulization, compressed-air jet nebulization and oxygen-driven jet nebulization is more adequate for patients with moderate and severe asthma, group,there were 0 min.