双水平气道正压对OSAHS患者预后及血管内皮功能的影响

目的 分析双水平气道正压双水平气道正压通气(bi-level positive airway pressure,BiPAP)对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征(obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome,OSAHS)患者血管内皮功能及预后的影响。 方法 将100例OSAHS患者纳入研究，随机分为观察及对照组，各50例。观察组行BiPAP ，对照组行常规治疗，比较两组多导睡眠监测(polysomnography，PSG)检查指标（低通气指数、呼吸暂停指数、呼吸暂停及低通气时间、90%以下血氧饱和度次数、90%以下血氧饱和度时间）、心肺功能［脑钠肽(brainnatriureticpeptide,BNP)、右心室Tei指数、左心室Tei指数、一秒用力呼气容积占用力肺活量的百分比(forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity，FEV1/FVC)、一秒用力呼气容积占预计值的百分比(FEV1占预计值%)］、血管内皮功能［内皮素1(endothelin-1,ET-1)、一氧化氮(nitric oxide,NO)、凝血酶Ⅲ(antithrombin Ⅲ,AT-Ⅲ)］及生活质量。 结果 观察组低通气指数、呼吸暂停指数、呼吸暂停及低通气时间、90%以下血氧饱和度次数及时间指标均显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）。观察组治疗后BNP以及Tei指数显著低于治疗前及对照组治疗后，FEV1/FVC、FEV1占预计值%显著高于治疗前及对照组治疗后(P＜0.05)。观察组治疗后ET-1、AT-Ⅲ低于治疗前及对照组治疗后，NO高于治疗前及对照组治疗后（P＜0.05）。观察组治疗后生活质量各项目评分高于对照组（P＜0.05）。 结论 BiPAP治疗能够改善OSAHS患者的预后情况及血管内皮功能，效果确切。     

气道压力释放通气治疗重度急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的监测与护理

总结14例气道压力释放通气模式治疗重度急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的监测与护理。正确评估患者，动态调整气道压力释放通气模式的参数，监测患者自主呼吸、潮气量、通气和氧合功能及血流动力学变化，加强呼吸机管路及人工气道密闭性、镇痛镇静和人工气道的护理及气道压力释放通气模式下撤机管理。经过严密监测与护理，14例患者均成功撤机。     

累及气道的嗜酸性肉芽肿性多血管炎1例

本文报道1例累及气道的嗜酸性肉芽肿性多血管炎,以“咳嗽、发热4天”入院。入院后行支气管镜检查,活检病理提示大量嗜酸性粒细胞浸润,完善进一步检查后确诊为嗜酸性肉芽肿性多血管炎。治疗上予糖皮质激素联合免疫抑制剂治疗,复查肺部CT病灶明显吸收,症状缓解,目前随访病情稳定。     

野外急救多功能气道防护屏的研制

研制一种适合野外急救使用的多功能气道防护屏,以解决气道相关操作时患者呼吸道分泌物喷溅的问题。多功能气道防护屏由一个底部为直角"目"型框架,两个体部为直角"∏"形不锈钢支架,一个双层开放气道体位调节垫和一个透明塑料罩组成,具有可拆卸、可折叠及视野清晰的多功能呼吸道防护装备;防护屏设计具有可调节头颈后仰卧位,能充分显露气道提高气管插管成功率,可提高医护人员安全性和满意度;在防护屏内建立人工气道、实施各种气道护理,可防止患者呼吸道分泌物喷溅,使周围环境处于相对安全状态,有效避免职业暴露及交叉感染。     

重症肺炎并呼吸衰竭患儿接受早期持续气道正压通气治疗对血气指标及预后的影响

目的分析重症肺炎并呼吸衰竭患儿接受早期持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗对血气指标及预后的影响。方法选取2019年2月至2020年6月本院收治的110例重症肺炎并呼吸衰竭患儿,按照组间基本资料具有可比性的原则分为对照组与实验组,各55例。对照组接受常规方案治疗,实验组接受早期持续CPAP治疗,比较两组血气指标改善情况以及患儿预后。结果治疗后,两组PaO₂、PaCO₂、SaO₂均显著改善,且实验组改善程度明显优于对照组(P<0.05)。实验组临床病死率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义。结论采用早期持续CPAP治疗重症肺炎并呼吸衰竭患儿效果显著,能明显改善血气指标和预后,具有临床推广价值。     

开放气道式卧位在无创通气治疗呼吸衰竭中的应用

目的探讨开放气道式卧位在无创机械通气治疗呼吸衰竭患者中的应用效果。方法选取2018年6月1日—2019年5月31日本院重症医学科收治的113例应用无创呼吸机进行正压通气的呼吸衰竭患者作为研究对象,按入院先后次序交替分为常规组(57例)和实验组(56例),常规组给予常规无创通气护理,实验组在常规无创通气护理的基础上予肩颈下置弧型小枕的开放气道式卧位;观察并比较干预前后两组患者通气效果(血氧饱和度、血氧分压、二氧化碳分压、血pH、吸入潮气量、呼出潮气量、漏气量、气道峰压)、耐受及不良反应情况(平均睡眠时间、插管率、压疮及压痕发生率、胃肠胀气发生率、主观舒适度)、责任护士的工作量。结果干预后,两组通气效果各项指标均较干预前有一定程度改善,并且除血氧饱和度、氧分压之外,实验组的改善效果优于常规组(P<0.05);实验组平均睡眠时间高于常规组,且有创通气率及胃肠胀气发生率均低于常规组(P<0.05);实验组责任护士工作量较常规组少(P<0.05)。结论应用弧型小枕置患者肩颈下的开放气道式卧位能显著改善患者的通气效果,延长患者的睡眠时间,减少不良反应,降低护士的工作量。     

FOCUS-PDCA模式在人工气道患者声门下吸引护理中的应用

目的:探究FOCUS-PDCA模式在人工气道患者声门下吸引护理中的应用。方法:选择2019年6～2020年6月期间收治的76例人工气道声门下吸引患者作为研究对象,按照随机原则进行分组,对照组(n=36)采用声门下吸引常规护理,观察组(n=40)采用FOCUS-PDCA模式,对两组患者的误吸发生率、每日吸痰量、吸痰次数进行比较。结果:观察组患者误吸发生率、每日吸痰量、吸痰次数明显少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:对人工气道声门下吸引患者采用FOCUS-PDCA模式,有效降低患者误吸发生率,减少患者每日吸痰量,吸痰次数,有临床推广价值。     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.