老年AECOPD患者两种雾化吸入方式疗效比较

Clinical effect of atomization inhalation on elderly patients with COP

目的观察空气压缩雾化吸入和氧驱动雾化吸入方法对老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)患者血气分析、PEF和临床症状的影响,比较两种雾化吸入方式的疗效。方法将96例确诊为AECOPD的老年患者随机分为两组,每组48例,用相同种类、剂量的药物,分别采用空气压缩泵雾化吸入(A组)与氧驱动雾化吸入(B组)治疗,治疗前后均进行动脉血气分析和最大呼气流速(PEF)检测,同时用CAT量表记录患者的临床症状。结果两组雾化治疗后,临床症状CAT评分均较前降低,其中B组下降更加明显;PEF均较前提高,两组间无显著差异;血气分析PH值、PO_2、SaO_2均较治疗前升高,PCO_2降低。两组间PH值、PCO_2改变差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后B组PO_2及SaO_2升高较A组明显(P<0.05)。结论老年AECOPD患者两种雾化吸入均可使用,但氧驱动雾化在改善患者症状和缺氧方面优于空气压缩雾化,可在临床推广应用。

Objective To observe the effect of compressor atomization inhalation and oxygen-driven inhalation method for elderly patients with AECOPD. Methods 96 elderly patients were randomly divided into group A and group B. Group A （compressor atomization inhalation） and group B （oxygen atomization inhalation） were treated with the same drug and the same doses. The arterial blood gas analysis, PEF detection and clinical symptoms by CAT were observed. Results After atomization treatment, clinical symptom score（CAT）were reduced in both group. The clinical symptom score of group B more obviously decreased than that of group A （P〈 0.05）. There was no significant difference between the two groups in PEF detection（P〉 0.05）. PH, PO2, SaO2 were increased and PCO2 were reduced in both groups（P 〈 0.05）. PO2 and SaO2 increased in group B were more significant than that of in group A （P〈 0.05）. Conclusion Two kinds of atomization inhalation may adopt, but the oxygen-driven atomizer is superior to air compressed atomizer in improving symptoms and oxygen displacement.