论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较两种机械通气模式治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的临床价值。方法:抽取商丘市第一人民医院2018年1月至2021年5月收治的100例AECOPD伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者作为研究对象，采取随机数字表法分为两组，每组50例。接受适应性压力支持通气(ASV)模式治疗者为ASV组，接受同步间歇指令通气(SIMV)模式治疗者为SIMV组。比较两组患者治疗前、治疗后7 d血气指标[动脉二氧化碳分压(PaCOn 2)、动脉血氧分压(PaOn 2)、血氧饱和度(SpOn 2)、酸碱度(pH值)]、呼吸力学指标[呼吸频率、吸气/呼气周期时间比值(Ti/Ttot)、潮气量(VT)]及生命体征[心率(HR)、收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)]变化。n 结果:治疗后7 d，两组PaOn 2、SpOn 2均高于治疗前，PaCOn 2低于治疗前，且ASV组PaOn 2、SpOn 2[(74.19±2.28)mmHg(1 mmHg＝0.133 kPa)、(97.78±1.65)%]高于SIMV组[(70.25±2.43)mmHg、(97.02±1.74)%]，PaCOn 2[(51.01±1.37)mmHg]低于SIMV组[(55.18±1.86)mmHg]，n P<0.05。治疗后7 d，两组呼吸频率均低于治疗前，VT均高于治疗前，且ASV组呼吸频率低于SIMV组，VT高于SIMV组(n P<0.05)。治疗后7 d，两组HR、SBP及DBP均低于治疗前，且ASV组低于对照组(n P<0.05)。n 结论:在治疗AECOPD伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者时，ASV模式相较于SIMV模式，更利于稳定患者的生命体征，改善血气指标，提高呼吸功能。“,”Objective:To compare the clinical value of two mechanical ventilation modes in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) complicated by type II respiratory failure.Methods:One hundred patients with AECOPD complicated by type II respiratory failure treated in Shangqiu First People’s Hospital from January 2018 to May 2021 were selected as the research objects. And they were divided into two groups by random number table method, with 50 cases in each group. The patients received adaptive pressure support ventilation (ASV) mode treatment as ASV group, and who received synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) mode treatment as SIMV group. Blood gas indexes including arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCOn 2), arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaOn 2), blood oxygen saturation (SpOn 2) and pH, respiratory mechanics indexes including respiratory frequency, inspiratory/expiratory cycle time ratio (Ti/Ttot), tidal volume (VT), and vital signs including heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in the two groups before and 7 days after treatment were compared.n Results:Compared with these indexes before treatment, PaOn 2 and SpOn 2 of the two groups were higher, and PaCOn 2 of the two groups were lower after 7 days of treatment (n P<0.05); and PaOn 2 and SpOn 2 of the ASV group were (74.19±2.28)mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) and (97.78±1.65)%, respectively, higher than the (70.25±2.43)mmHg and (97.02±1.74)% in the SIMV group, while PaCOn 2 in the ASV group was (51.01±1.37)mmHg, lower than the (55.18±1.86)mmHg in the SIMV group. After 7 days of treatment, respiratory frequency in the two groups were lower than those before treatment, and VT in the two groups were higher than those before treatment; and respiratory frequency in the ASV group was lower than that in the SIMV group, while the VT was higher than that in the SIMV group (n P<0.05). After 7 days of treatment, HR, SBP and DBP of the two groups were lower than those before treatment, and these indexes in the ASV group were lower than those in the control group (n P<0.05).n Conclusions:In the treatment of AECOPD patients with type II respiratory failure, ASV mode is more conducive to stabilizing patients’ vital signs, improve blood gas indexes, and improve respiratory function, compared with SIMV mode.