常频机械通气与经鼻持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸衰竭疗效对比分析

Comparative Study the Efficacy of Conventional Mechanical Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure

目的观察经鼻持续气道正压通气与常频机械通气治疗新生儿呼吸衰竭临床疗效,进一步指导临床。方法选取我院2014年8月-2016年11月收治的呼吸衰竭新生儿56例,按照随机对照的原则,将患儿分为观察组和对照组两组,每组各28例,两组均在常规治疗的基础上,观察组给予常频机械通气治疗,对照组给予经鼻持续气道正压通气治疗,观察两组动脉血气指标变化及合并症发生情况。结果两组治疗后动脉血气分析各项指标均较治疗前好转,但观察组改善情况优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),观察组患儿在气胸、继发二次感染等合并症发生情况与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但较易并发合并症。结论与经鼻持续气道正压通气相比,常频机械通气治疗新生儿呼吸衰竭能有效改善动脉血气分析结果,但合并症发生率较高,因此临床工作中应根据新生儿具体情况选择适合的治疗方法。

Objective To compare the efficacy of conventional mechanical ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatmentof neonatal respiratory failure, further guidance clinical. Methods Chose 56 patients with neonatal respiratory failure from August 2014 to November 2016, a randomized trial, were randomly assigned into the observation group（n=28） and the control group（n=28）. Both groups were given routine treatment, the therapy group was given conventional mechanical ventilation, while the control group used nasal continuous positive airway pressure to treat. The changes of blood gas and the incidence of comorbidities were observed. Results After treatment, blood gas indexes were significantly improved in the two groups. But the improvement of the observation group was better than the control group, the difference was statistically significant（P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the occurrence of complications（P〈0.05）. But more complicated with complications. Conclusion Compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure, conventional mechanical ventilation can effectively improve the results of blood gas analysis, but the incidence of complications is high, so the clinical work should be based on the specific circumstances of neonatal choice suitable treatment.