微量泵持续滴注气道湿化与注射器间歇灌注湿化在气管切开患者中的临床效果对比

Comparison on Clinical Effects of Airway Humidification between Minim Pump Continuous Infusion and Syringe Intermittent Perfusion on Patients with Tracheotomy

目的观察并对比微量泵持续滴入气道湿化与注射器间歇灌注湿化在气管切开患者中的临床效果与并发症发生情况.方法将116例重症监护室需气管切开患者随机分成微量泵持续气道湿化组与常规间断气道湿化组,对1周后2组间肺部感染、痰痂形成、刺激性咳嗽、气道黏膜出血、吸痰次数及护理时间进行比较.结果微量泵持续气道湿化组肺部感染率低于常规间断气道湿化组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);微量泵持续滴入气道湿化组痰痂形成、发生刺激性咳嗽、气道黏膜出血的例数明显少于注射器间歇灌注湿化组(P<0.05);微量泵持续气道湿化组日均吸痰次数与日均护理用时均低于注射器间歇灌注湿化组(P<0.05).结论微量泵持续滴入较注射器间歇灌注湿化效果更佳,并发症更少,且能有效减少护理工作量,提高护理效率.

Objective To observe and compare the effects of continuous airway humidification and conventional intermittent airway humidification on the tracheotomy patients.Methods 116 cases of tracheotomy patients were divided into minim pump continuous airway humidification group （60 cases） and conventional intermittent airway humidification group （56 cases） randomly.The pulmonary infection,sputum scab formation,irritating cough,airway mucosa bleeding,sputum suction frequency and corresponding nursing workloads were compared between two groups after one week.Results Incidence of pulmonary infection,sputum scab formation,irritating cough,and airway mucosa bleeding,daily sputum suction frequency and corresponding daily nursing time in minim pump continuous airway humidification group were statistically significant lower compared with conventional intermittent airway humidification group （P ＞0.05）.Conclusion Compared with conventional intermittent airway humidification,the minim pump continuous airway humidification has better therapeutic effect and fewer complications,can reduce the nursing workloads and improve the efficiency of nursing.