不同正压通气方案治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床疗效对比

Clinical comparison of different positive pressure ventilation schemes in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

目的:比较采用三种不同的正压通气方案治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(NRDS)的效果。方法:选取绵阳市中心医院儿科2019年1月至2021年1月收治的120例NRDS患儿作为研究对象。随机将其分为A组、B组、C组,每组各有40例患儿。对A组患儿进行经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)治疗,对B组患儿进行经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)治疗,对C组患儿进行双水平气道正压通气(BIPAP)治疗,然后比较三组患儿的动脉血氧分压(PaO_(2))和动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO_(2))。结果:治疗12 h、24 h及48 h后,C组患儿的PaO_(2)均高于A组患儿与B组患儿,其PaCO_(2)均低于A组患儿与B组患儿,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组患儿与B组患儿的PaO_(2)、PaCO_(2)相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:与对NRDS患儿进行NCPAP或NIPPV治疗相比,对其进行BIPAP治疗的效果更好,能更有效地改善其动脉血气指标。

Objective:To compare the effects of three different positive pressure ventilation schemes in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome(NRDS).Methods:A total of 120 children with NRDS admitted to the Department of Pediatrics of Mianyang Central Hospital from January 2019 to January 2021 were selected as the research subjects.They were randomly divided into group A,group B and group C,with 40 children in each group.Children in group A were treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure(NCPAP),children in group B were treated with nasal intermittent positive airway pressure(NIPPV),and children in group C were treated with two-level positive airway pressure(BIPAP).Then,the arterial partial pressure of oxygen(PaO_(2))and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide(PaCO_(2))were compared among the three groups.Results:After treatment for 12 h,24 h and 48 h,PaO_(2) in group C was higher than that in group A and group B,and PaCO_(2) was lower than that in group A and group B,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in PaO_(2) and PaCO_(2) between group A and group B(P>0.05).Conclusion:Compared with NCPAP or NIPPV therapy,BIPAP therapy can improve arterial blood gas index more effectively in children with NRDS.