经鼻双水平气道正压通气与经鼻持续气道正压通气辅助治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征疗效比较

Comparison of nasal double-level positive airway pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

目的对比经鼻双水平气道正压通气(nBiPAP)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)的疗效。方法选取2017年3月至2018年9月该院收治的呼吸窘迫综合征新生儿140例,分为nBiPAP和nCPAP组,每组70例。nBiPAP组使用nBiPAP治疗,nCPAP组使用nCPAP治疗,对比分析两组患儿的疗效。结果nBiPAP组患儿治愈率明显高于nCPAP组,呼吸暂停发生率、撤机时间均明显低于nCPAP组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患儿并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论nBiPAP用治疗新生儿RDS,疗效比nCPAP更好,值得临床推广应用。

Objective To compare the efficacy of nasal bi-level positive airway pressure(nBiPAP)and nasal continuous positive airway pressure(nCPAP)in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome(RDS).Methods A total of 140 neonates with respiratory distress syndrome were divided into two groups,70 in each group.Nbipap group was treated with bi level positive airway pressure,nCPAP group was treated with continuous positive airway pressure.Results The cure rate of nbipap group was higher than that of nCPAP group(P<0.05);the incidence of apnea in nbipap group was lower than that of nCPAP group(P<0.05);the incidence of complications in nbipap group was not significantly different from that in nCPAP group(P>0.05);the weaning time in nbipap group was lower than that in nCPAP group(P<0.05).Conclusion The application of nBiPAP in neonatal RDS is better than nCPAP,which is worthy of clinical promotion.