两种无创通气方式在早产儿机械通气后呼吸支持中的应用比较

Comparison of two noninvasive ventilation methods as respiratory support after mechanical ventilation in premature infants

目的:比较同步经鼻间歇正压通气(SNIPPV)和经鼻持续正压通气(NCPAP)应用于呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)早产儿撤机阶段的疗效及预后。方法:选择某医院收治的40例接受气管插管-机械通气的RDS早产儿。拔管后随机分为SNIPPV组和NCPAP组,观察记录两组患儿临床效果、并发症发生情况、住院时间及费用。结果:SNIPPV组拔管失败率低于NCPAP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患儿无创通气时间、总氧疗时间、住院总时间、住院总费用及并发症发生率之间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:SNIPPV作为RDS早产儿机械通气后的辅助通气支持模式是安全有效的,但仍需大样本的临床试验证实。

Objective:To compare the efficacy and prognosis of simultaneous nasal positive pressure ventilation(SNIPPV)and nasal continuous positive airway pressure(NCPAP)in the stage of weaning of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome(RDS).Methods:Choose the forty preterm infants those were admitted to a hospital.All these preterm infants received mechanical ventilation.After evacuation of mechanical ventilation,the children were randomly divided into SNIPPV group and NCPAP group.The clinical effects,complications,hospitalization time and expenses of two groups were recorded.Results:The failure rate of extubation in the SNIPPV group was lower than that in the NCPAP group(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the success rate of noninvasive ventilation time,total oxygen therapy time,total hospitalization time,total hospitalization cost and complication rate between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:SNIPPV is safer and more effective as a model of assisted ventilation after mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with RDS,but it still needs to be confirmed by large-sample clinical trials.