简化临床肺部感染评分对无创通气治疗AECOPD呼吸衰竭的疗效评价研究

Evaluation of the efficacy of a simplified clinical pulmonary infection score for non-invasive ventilation respiratory failure AECOPD

目的探讨分析简化临床肺部感染评分对无创通气治疗AECOPD呼吸衰竭的疗效评价。方法回顾性分析进行无创通气治疗的76例AECOPD呼吸衰竭患者的临床记录资料,利用x^2与t值对数据加以检验。结果两组治疗前的各项血气分析指标相比差异无统计学意义,但治疗后有效组的p H值(7.35±0.02)、PaO(67.02±6.37)均明显高于无效组,PaCO(71.06±2 29.59)均明显低于无效组,RR(22.75±6.58)、HR(97.33±5.94)均低于无效组,有效组治疗前后的CPIS均低于无效组,差异均具统计学意义(P<0.05)。≤6分组和>6分组的有效率相比差异具统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论简化临床肺部感染评分可作为NIPPV治疗AECOPD呼吸衰竭疗效的有效预测指标,简化CPIS<6分说明NIPPV治疗效果较好。

Objective To investigate the clinical pulmonary infection score simplifies the analysis of non-invasive ventilation therapy efficacy evaluation AECOPD with respiratory failure. Methods Analysis of noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of 76 cases of patients with respiratory failure AECOPD clinical record data, Use x2 test and t value to the data. Results The blood gas analysis prior to treatment, compared to no significant difference, but the pH value （7.35±0.02） after effective treatment group, Pad2 （67.02±6.37） were significantly higher than the ineffective group, PaCO2 （ 71.06±9.59） were significantly lower than the ineffectivegroup, RR（22.75±6.58 ）, HR（97.33±5.94） were low in ineffective group, CPIS effective group before and after treatment were low er than the ineffective group, the differences were statistically significant （P〈0.05）. ≤6 grouping and〉 6 packets efficient statisti- cally significant difference compared （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The simplified clinical pulmonary infection score as NIPPV AECO PD respiratory failure effective predictor of treatment, simplified CPIS 〈6 points explanation NIPPV treatment is better.