慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及对安全性的影响

目的探讨慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及安全性。方法选取2018年1月至2019年12月因慢性泪囊炎于本院接受治疗的46例患者为研究对象,随机分为研究组与对照组,各23例。对照组接受泪囊鼻腔造口治疗,研究组取鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗,比较两组临床效果、手术指标以及并发症发生情况。结果研究组治疗总有效率高于对照组(P<0.05);研究组术中出血量少于对照组,手术及住院时间均短于对照组(P<0.05);研究组并发症总发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论慢性泪囊炎患者采用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗效果显著,并发症较少,安全性较高,值得临床推广应用。     

经鼻间歇正压通气防治早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床研究

目的探讨经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)在防治早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)中的应用价值。方法选择2017年6月至2018年12月梧州市人民医院RDS早产儿90例,其中男性48例,女性42例;胎龄(29.03±0.58)周;出生体质量(996.91±98.52)g;病程(3.48±0.56)h;临床分级Ⅰ级58例,Ⅱ级32例;Apgar评分(6.85±1.06)分。依据随机数字表分为NIPPV组和持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)组,每组45例。NIPPV组给予NIPPV治疗,NCPAP组给予NCPAP治疗,若两组治疗后不能维持患儿生命体征则使用肺表面活性物质(PS)或行有创机械通气。结果NIPPV组和NCPAP组治疗12、24 h后和治疗结束时动脉血氧分压(PaO2)、氧合指数(OI)明显高于治疗前。NIPPV组治疗12、24 h后PaO2、OI明显高于NCPAP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。NIPPV组和NCPAP组治疗结束时PaO2、OI比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);NIPPV组PS使用率(22.22%vs 44.44%)、有创通气率(17.78%vs 40.00%)、氧疗时间[(71.42±7.62)h vs(85.62±9.24)h]、有创通气时间[(46.78±5.32)h vs(55.27±6.14)h]、住院时间[(30.42±3.65)d vs(35.62±3.89)d]、并发症率(31.11%vs 53.33%)明显低于NCPAP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论NIPPV可有效改善RDS早产儿通气功能,有利于减少PS使用、有创通气及并发症,值得临床推广。     

经鼻导管高流量吸氧与经鼻气道正压通气在重症毛细支气管炎呼吸支持中的应用价值比较

目的：比较经鼻导管高流量吸氧（HFNC）与经鼻气道正压通气（nCPAP）在重症毛细支气管炎呼吸支持中的应用价值，为临床治疗方案的选择提供参考。方法：选取2016年12月至2018年12月我院儿科收治的重症毛细支气管炎患儿90例，采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各45例。两组患儿入院后均给予常规综合治疗以保证呼吸道通畅，在此基础上观察组采用HFNC治疗，对照组采用nCPAP治疗，比较两组患儿治疗前和治疗24 h后呼吸频率、经皮血氧饱和度（TcSO2）、呼吸窘迫评分体系（CSS）评分、动脉血氧分压（PaO2）等呼吸相关指标及治疗前后临床症状体征改善情况。结果：两组患儿治疗24 h后呼吸频率、CSS评分均降低，且观察组降低程度更大，TcSO2、PaO2于治疗24 h后升高，观察组升高幅度较对照组明显；治疗后两组患儿咳嗽及肺部湿啰音、肺部炎症情况均改善，观察组症状体征消失时间早于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：重症毛细支气管炎患儿采用HFNC治疗可明显改善通气功能和临床症状，治疗效果优于nCPAP治疗，可扩大样本量进一步观察。     

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.     

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

Areas covered: This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

Expert opinion: Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.