不同雾化吸入方式治疗小儿支气管哮喘的疗效分析

Analysis of different atomization inhalation in treatment of children bronchial asthma

目的观察氧驱动雾化吸入与超声雾化吸入治疗小儿支气管哮喘的效果。方法我院确诊为小儿支气管哮喘且进行雾化吸入治疗的患儿104例。按随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,观察组54例,对照组50例。两组均予相同的常规抗炎、补液等处理措施,均予布地奈德雾化吸入治疗。观察组应用氧驱动雾化吸入法,对照组应用超声雾化吸入法,比较两组的临床疗效。结果观察组门诊治疗时间短于对照组,门诊治疗费用低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(p<0.05)。观察组总有效率96.3%,明显高于对照组的70.0%,差异均有统计学意义(p<0.05)。观察组不良反应发生率略低于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。结论氧驱动雾化吸入法治疗小儿支气管哮喘效果优于超声雾化吸入法治疗,可作为小儿支气管哮喘患儿雾化吸入的选择方式。

Objective To investigate the therapeutic effect of oxygen driven atomizing inhalation and ultrasonic atomization inhalation in treatment of bronchial asthma in children. Methods 104 children with bronchial asthma in our hospital from March 2014 to March 2011 were selected as the research object and 104 cases were diagnosed as children bronchial asthma with the need and were treated by atomization inhalation. According to the random number table method divided into two groups of control group and observation group, 54 cases in observation group, 50 cases in the control group. The two groups were given the same conventional anti - inflammatory, rehydration and other treatment measures, were treated with budesonide inhalation therapy. In the observation group, the application of oxygen driven atomizing inhalation was used, and the control group was compared with two groups of clinical curative effect. Observation comparison, draw conclusions. Results in the observation group, the treatment time was shorter than that in the control group, the treatment cost was lower than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant （p 〈 0.05）. The total effective rate of the observation group was 96.3% , which was significantly higher than that of the control group （ ）, the difference was statistically significant （ p 〈 0. 05 ）. The incidence of ad- verse reactions in the observation group was slightly lower than that in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant （p 〉 0.05）. In the observation group （ oxygen jet atomization atomization and atomization in the oxygen saturation of 10min, the total efficiency was significantly higher than that in control group, P 〈 0.05, the difference was statistically significant; the incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group rate, outpatient treatment time, outpatient treatment costs were significantly lower than the control group（ P 〈 0.05）, the difference is statistically significant. Conclusion oxygen atomizing inhalation method in the treatment of children with bron-chial asthma effect is better than that of ultrasonic atomizing inhalation therapy, lower inhalation in children with bronchial asthma in children with atomization choice. It is worth using.