论文部分内容阅读
为评价氧驱动雾化吸入控制婴幼儿哮喘急性发作的临床效果及安全性 ,探讨婴幼儿哮喘急性发作时的最佳控制方案 ,将220例婴幼儿哮喘急性发作的病儿分治疗组(120例) ,对照组(100例)。治疗组按顺序分配首选给予雾化吸入1 ,2 ,3号各40例。对照组首选给予静脉滴注糖皮质激素加短效β-受体激动剂吸入 ,后续治疗同治疗组。观察其用药后30min喘息改善情况、SaO2 值、入院率、治疗1周经济费用等 ,并观察其安全性(雾化时是否有短暂缺氧)。结果 :治疗组与对照组24小时哮喘分度、SaO2、l周疗效、入院率及安全性对比差异无显著性 ;而30min后肺部体征改善及l周内经济支出有明显差异 ;3组不同的雾化药液治疗结果也有一定差异。提示 :控制婴幼儿哮喘急性发作 ,氧驱动雾化吸入较静脉用药有明显优越性 ;推荐糖皮质激质激素雾化液 +短效 β-受体激动剂作为雾化用药
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of oxygen-driven nebulization inhalation in the management of acute asthma attacks in infants and young children, and to explore the optimal control strategy for infants and young children with acute attack of asthma. One hundred and twenty infants with acute onset of asthma were divided into two groups ), Control group (100 cases). The treatment group were assigned to the preferred order of atomization inhalation 1, 2, 3 of 40 cases. Control group preferred intravenous infusion of glucocorticoid plus short-acting beta-agonist inhalation, follow-up treatment with the treatment group. Observe the improvement of wheezing after 30min, SaO2 value, admission rate, the economic cost of treatment for one week, and observe its safety (whether there is a transient hypoxia in the atomization). Results: There was no significant difference between the treatment group and the control group in 24-hour asthma classification, SaO2, l week efficacy, admission rate and safety; while 30 minutes after the lung signs were improved and l weeks economic expenditure were significantly different; 3 groups were different The results of the treatment of aerosol liquid also have some differences. Tip: control infant acute asthma attack, oxygen-driven inhalation compared with intravenous medication has obvious advantages; recommended glucocorticoid nebulizer + short-acting beta-agonists as the atomization medication