摘要
目的比较经鼻间歇正压通气(nIPPV)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)在拔管后呼吸支持中的疗效。方法于2011年1月至2012年12月,采用回顾性研究的方法,将196例拔管患儿按照呼吸支持模式分为分为nIPPV组(102例)与nCPAP组(94例),比较nIPPV或nCPAP呼吸支持治疗后需再次行气管插管机械通气的比例。结果 nIPPV组拔管成功率为88.2%(90/102),使用nIPPV时间(6.3±2.8)d,nCPAP组拔管成功率为75.5%(71/94),使用nCPAP时间(7.1±2.4)d;nIPPV组拔管后需要呼吸支持时间短,拔管成功率高(P<0.05)。结论与nCPAP比较,nIPPV治疗可显著提高拔管成功率。
Objective To compare the curative effect of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV ) and nasal con-tinuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) method .Methods Retrospective study was took on 196 neonatal infants ,all cases were assigned into nIPPV group (n=102) and nCPAP group (n=94) according to mode of ventilation from January 2011 to December 2012 in a neonatal intensive care unit of this hospital .The ratio of requirement for endotracheal ventilation and the outcome were in-vestigated .Results Infants treated initially with nIPPV need less endotracheal ventilation and ventilation time than those treated with nCPAP (11 .8% vs .24 .5% ,P〈0 .05) .Conclusion Compared with nCPAP ,nIPPV decreased the requirement for endotrache-al ventilation in neonatal infants after extubation .
出处
《重庆医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第36期4408-4409,4411,共3页
Chongqing medicine
关键词
婴儿
新生
间歇正压通气
连续气道正压通气
infant, newborn
intermittent positive pressure ventilation
continuous positive airway pressure