论文部分内容阅读
目的比较空气压缩泵和氧气两种驱动方式雾化吸入气道舒张剂对喘息症状临床疗效的影响。方法将200例病例按出生日期分成空气压缩泵组及氧气驱动组。观察两种雾化方式的临床症状改善情况、雾化持续时间及评价患儿接受程度。结果两组研究对象年龄、性别、喘息轻重程度、SaO2等方面均无差异。两组病例在吸入前后心率、呼吸频率、肺功能、吸入过程的主观感觉、吸入持续时间、患儿接受程度等方面均无差异(P>0.05);肺部哮鸣音均改善;虽然吸入治疗后SaO2的升高幅度在两组间差异有统计学意义,但由于实际SaO2变化的差值很小,A组平均为(1.6±2.1),B组为(2.6±1.6),临床意义不大。结论空气压缩泵和氧气雾化吸入气道舒张剂对喘息症状的患者同样有效,空气压缩泵更适合门诊和家庭使用。
Objective To compare the effects of inhalation of airway vasodilators with aerosol pump and oxygen on the clinical effects of wheezing symptoms. Methods 200 cases were divided into air compression pump group and oxygen driven group according to birth date. To observe the improvement of the clinical symptoms of two kinds of atomization, the duration of atomization and evaluation of children’s acceptance. Results There were no differences in age, gender, wheezing severity, SaO2, etc between the two groups. There was no significant difference in heart rate, respiratory rate, lung function, subjective feeling of inhalation, duration of inhalation and children’s acceptance in both groups before and after inhalation (P> 0.05) After the increase in SaO2 in the two groups was statistically significant difference, but the actual SaO2 changes in the difference is small, A group averaged (1.6 ± 2.1), B group (2.6 ± 1.6), clinical significance . Conclusions Air compression pumps and aerosol inhalation of airway vasodilators are equally effective for patients with wheezing symptoms, and air compression pumps are more suitable for outpatient and home use.