无创正压通气支持对慢性呼吸衰竭患者血流动力学参数的影响

目的比较持续气道正压(CPAP)通气与双水平气道正压(BiPAP)通气对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)合并呼吸衰竭患者血流动力学参数的影响。方法COPD合并呼吸衰竭患者31例,其中男性24例,女性7例,年龄(67±4)岁。给予常规内科治疗的同时,进行CPAP和BiPAP无创正压机械通气(NPPV)各60min,使用胸腔阻抗法监测患者在鼻导管吸氧自主呼吸以及接受不同通气模式支持时血流动力学参数、通气参数和动脉血气的变化。结果与自主呼吸相比,患者在CPAP通气后心率(HR)和平均动脉压(MAP)略有下降,而在BiPAP通气时呈明显下降(P<0.05)。BiPAP通气时患者的心输出量(CO)、心脏指数(CI)、搏出量(SV)和每搏指数(SI)与CPAP时相近,但低于未进行NPPV时。NPPV支持后射血前时间(PEP)明显缩短,对左室射血时间(LVET)则影响不大。CPAP时的浅快呼吸指数(RR/VT)为81.2±4.7,显著高于BiPAP时的53.6±2.9(P<0.05)。所有患者在NPPV支持时的PaO2/FiO2较鼻导管吸氧时显著增高,PaCO2则有所降低。结论COPD呼吸衰竭患者接受NPPV支持尤其是BiPAP通气后,患者的VT显著增加,相应PaO2/FiO2也明显增高,而PaCO2呈逐步下降,患者RR/VT的降低则反映其呼吸肌做功的减少,氧耗量降低。血流动力学参数中CO、CI、SV等均较鼻导管吸氧时明显下降,但不同NPPV模式对上述参数的影响却无差异。CPAP与BiPAP通气时患者的PEP明显下降,说明患者的心脏收缩能力得到增强。     

无创正压机械通气治疗呼吸衰竭失败的预测因素

目的分析应用无创正压机械通气（NIPPV）治疗呼吸衰竭病例资料,探求失败的相关因素,为NIPPV的临床应用提供可能的预警因素。方法经NIPPV治疗387例患者分为成功组和失败组,监测患者生命体征指标和血气分析指标,多因素分析包括患者年龄、受教育程度、呼吸衰竭的病程、患者的基础疾病和患者的依从性、上机后开始床旁监测时间、应用呼吸机早期病情的变化。基础疾病采用急性生理与慢性健康评分（APACHEⅡ）,神志改变采用Glasaow昏迷评分（GCS）。结果在NIPPV早期依从性方面,失败组明显低于成功组,并且失败组初次使用呼吸机的监护时间明显低于成功组。在APACHEⅡ评分方面,失败组明显高于成功组。两组初始血气分析指标没有显著差别,但随着通气时间的延长,成功组明显好转,而失败组无明显变化,NIPPV在抢救多种原因引起的呼吸衰竭成功率为86.3%。结论NIPPV在抢救多种原因引起的呼吸衰竭有重要的临床价值;失败组APACHEⅡ评分明显高于成功组,说明失败组病情危重,合并多器官功能不全,严重影响患者的预后;使用NIPPV的早期治疗反应非常重要。     

无创正压通气对老年社区获得性肺炎所致呼吸衰竭的疗效分析

目的 评价无创正压通气(NPPV)对老年社区获得性肺炎呼吸衰竭的疗效. 方法 将321例无心肺复苏、呼吸停止、严重血流动力学不稳定等需紧急气管插管,平均年龄(75.6±12.2)岁伴呼吸衰竭的社区获得性肺炎患者,随机分配给予NPPV(162例)或标准氧疗(159例)作为呼吸衰竭救治方法,比较其插管率、呼吸衰竭控制率及病死率,筛选影响因素. 结果 全部患者中,90％为Ⅰ型呼吸衰竭,NPPV组治疗失败插管率低于标准氧疗组(46.9％比64.2％,x2=9.652,P＜0.01),但两组呼吸衰竭控制率无差别(77.9％比72.3％,x2=1.274,P＞0.05),30 d病死率及90 d累积生存率亦无差别.NPPV治疗失败者病死率高于成功者(48.7％比11.6％,x2=26.900,P＜0.01).NPPV治疗失败、简易急性生理评分和年龄高、多肺叶病变是死亡的独立危险因素. 结论 NPPV 可降低老年社区获得性肺炎Ⅰ型呼吸衰竭的插管率,但总体疗效并不突出,应用时需警惕延误插管.     

老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病合并呼吸衰竭患者居家使用无创正压通气的疗效

目的探讨老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)合并呼吸衰竭患者应用家庭无创正压通气(NPPV)的疗效及依从性。方法选取2016年1月至2017年12月成都理工大学医院内科治疗好转出院的老年COPD合并呼吸衰竭患者100例,按随机数表法分为观察组和对照组,各50例。对照组患者居家给予常规治疗,包括祛痰、清理呼吸道、消痉抑喘、抗感染、长期吸氧。观察组在对照组基础上,加NPPV治疗。随访1年,记录并比较2组患者治疗前后住院情况、生活质量、呼吸困难程度、6-min步行测试(6MWT)、肺功能和动脉血气指标,以及依从性、不良事件发生情况。其中生活质量评价采用SF-36量表,呼吸困难程度采用圣乔治问卷。采用SPSS 21.0统计软件对数据进行分析。根据数据类型,组间比较采用t检验或χ2检验。结果随访1年,观察组和对照组患者分别住院(13.33±2.54)和(14.32±3.41)d,住院费用分别为(1.57±0.15)万元和(2.12±0.26)万元,2组患者住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.646,P>0.05),但住院费用比较差异有统计学意义(t=12.956,P<0.05)。与治疗前比较,治疗后2组患者生活质量评分、呼吸困难评分、6MWT、第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、动脉氧分压(PaO 2)和动脉二氧化碳分压(PaCO 2)均有明显改善(P<0.05)。治疗后,与对照组比较,观察组患者上述指标均显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗期间,观察组与对照组患者不良事件发生率[26.0%(13/50)和34.0%(17/50),P=0.383]、依从性差发生率[24.0%(12/50)和34.0%(17/50),P=0.271]比较差异无统计学意义。结论老年COPD合并呼吸衰竭患者在常规治疗基础上居家应用NPPV可改善症状,提高生活质量,同时减少了住院费用,值得推广。     

严重急性呼吸综合征所致呼吸衰竭及无创通气治疗

目的　回顾性总结严重急性呼吸综合征 (SARS)并发呼吸衰竭患者的血气特点 ,探讨应用无创正压通气 (NPPV)治疗的策略。方法　 2 0 0 3年 4月 2 2日～ 5月 1日 ,12 0例临床符合SARS诊断标准的患者入住北京地坛医院 (SARS专科医院 )的 4个病区 ,30例患者 (占 2 5 % )在病程中出现呼吸衰竭 ,达到急性肺损伤 (ALI)和 (或 )急性呼吸窘迫综合征 (ARDS)的诊断标准。 2 8例应用双水平气道正压通气 (BiPAP)。主要观察指标 :(1)住院期间的血气分析、脉搏容积血氧饱和度 (SpO2 )及呼吸频率 ,特别是上机前、上机后 1h及撤机后的结果 ;(2 )放射学检查或临床提示住院后新出现的气胸、纵隔气肿、心包积气及皮下气肿 ;(3)应用无创通气的天数 ;(4 )需气管插管行有创通气的患者数 ;(5 )患者的病死率 ;(6 )一线医务人员因护理治疗无创通气SARS患者而感染SARS的情况。结果统计 30例患者在整个病程中的动脉血二氧化碳分压 (PaCO2 )变化情况 ,16例 (5 3% )患者出现CO2 潴留 ,PaCO2为 4 5～ 5 6mmHg ,平均 (4 8± 4 )mmHg。NPPV治疗后动脉血氧分压 (PaO2 )、SpO2 、氧合指数及呼吸频率均显著改善 (P均 <0 0 1) ,但pH及PaCO2 的变化并不明显。 18例患者成功撤机 ,应用NPPV的时间为5～ 30d ,平均 (10± 6 )d。除 1例不能耐受BiPAP     

Eighty cases of chronic respiratory failure treated with home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation]

We studied the clinical features and efficacy of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) therapy in 80 patients to ascertain its indications and problems. The causes of chronic respiratory failure were restrictive thoracic diseases of post-tuberculosis sequelae (40 cases) and kyphoscoliosis (9 cases), COPD (8 cases), bronchiectasis (7 cases), and interstitial pneumonia (4 cases). One year survival rate of the patients with post-tuberculosis sequelae was 76% and most of the patients who started NPPV at their acute exacerbation died within several months. About half of the patients of COPD improved their quality of life (QOL) through NPPV. However, their survival rate 3 months later was only 69%. More than half of the patients with bronchiectasis felt that their QOL was improved by NPPV. Most of the patients with interstitial pneumonia died within 3 months indicating that NPPV is less useful for improving QOL of interstitial pneumonia PaCO2, after home NPPV, decreased significantly in the responder group (70.0 +/- 15.4 vs. 57.6 +/- 10.7[SD]Torr, p < 0.05), while PaCO2 in the non-responder group was unchanged (65.4 +/- 12.1 vs. 64.2 - 10.4 [SD] Torr). Body Mass Index (BMI) in the responder group tended to be higher than in the non-responder group. In conclusion, the restrictive thoracic diseases with post-tuberculosis sequelae and kyphoscoliosis are a good indication for NPPV and the therapy is also useful for patients with bronchiectasis who can dispose of their sputum by themselves. Home NPPV is suitable for patients whose PaCO2 decreases through NPPV and whose BMI is relatively high. QOL of interstitial pneumonia barely improves through NPPV, because interstitial pneumonia with hypercapnia is at the terminal stage.     

无创机械通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期呼吸衰竭合并肺大泡的疗效观察

目的观察无创正压通气（NIPPV）辅助治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期呼吸衰竭合并多发性肺大泡患者的临床疗效。方法选择呼吸监护病房住院的57例患者为研究对象,随机分为2组,治疗组30例,对照组27例,2组均进行一般治疗,同时治疗组给予无创通气治疗,吸气压（IPAP）自8~12 cmH2O开始,压力逐渐上升至16~20 cmH2O。呼气压（EPAP）自2~4 cmH2O开始,氧流量2~5 L/min维持氧饱和度（SaO2）〉90%,治疗后2h、24 h、2 d、5 d复查动脉血气,并观察治疗前后临床表现及动脉血气结果。结果治疗组治疗48 h后,pH从治疗前（7.31±0.12）改善至治疗后（7.36±0.17）,差异无统计学意义;动脉血二氧化碳分压（PaCO2）从治疗前（69.17±11.09）mmHg下降至治疗后（38.11±11.12）mmHg（P〈0.05）,动脉血氧分压（PaO2）从治疗前（50.08±12.12）mmHg上升到（70.11±14.15）mmHg,差异有统计学意义;对照组PaO2、PaCO2也较治疗前好转,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。治疗组有28例患者治疗后临床症状改善,气促减轻,有效率为93.3%,对照组有效率为66.6%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。治疗组的气管插管率和平均住院天数均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论无创机械通气对于慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期呼吸衰竭合并肺大泡疗效肯定,只要采取合理的通气策略,不会出现气胸等并发症,值得临床应用。     

Management of respiratory failure with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and heliox adjunct

Exhausted by persistent coughing and dyspnea, a 63-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the emergency department. Initial treatment included oxygen and pharmacologic and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) therapy with minimal clinical improvement. In view of this situation, a gas mixture of helium-oxygen (heliox) 70%:30% was introduced into the nasal mask as an adjunct. Within 20 minutes of therapy, a marked improvement in arterial blood gases and a reduction in respiratory rate and accessory muscle use was noted. The patient expressed in a high-pitched voice that he was "breathing easier." He remained on NPPV-heliox adjunct for 80 minutes. At the end of this period, the patient was placed on a 50% Venturi oxygen mask. He was transferred to the intensive care unit, and 6 days later he was discharged from the hospital without incident.     

无创正压通气治疗急性呼吸衰竭的疗效观察

目的探讨无创正压通气（NPPV）在治疗急性呼吸衰竭（ARF）中的临床疗效。方法 216例各种原因引起ARF的患者在常规治疗的基础上进行NPPV,采用压力支持通气（PSV）加呼气末正压通气（PEEP）。比较治疗前后动脉血气变化、观察NPPV治疗成功率及病死率。结果 NPPV治疗后2 h、24 h PaCO2和pH与治疗前比较明显改善（P〈0.01）,PaO2变化无显著性差异。NPPV对慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重（AECOPD）及急性心源性肺水肿疗效显著,成功率高。而对肺炎及肺间质纤维化疗效较差。结论 NPPV治疗ARF疗效肯定,正确选择患者及上机时机,密切监测,动态决策,可提高呼吸衰竭的救治成功率。     

无创正压通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭临床分析

目的采用回顾性方法总结无创正压通气(NPPV)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的治疗效果,分析治疗的相关因素。方法对2001年1月至2005年12月广州市番禺区人民医院呼吸内科112例AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者在普通病房使用NPPV治疗,并对有效组与无效组进行临床分析。比较两组在NPPV治疗前、治疗1~2h、24h及治疗结束后心率(HR)、呼吸频率(RR)、血气分析的变化。结果有效组NPPV治疗1~2h后PaO2、PaCO2明显改善;24h后氧合指数(OI)、HR、RR、SaO2、PaO2、PaCO2、pH明显改善。无效组治疗1~2h后与治疗前相比PaO2、PaCO2无明显改善,治疗24h后各指标也无改善。结论AE-COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭可在普通病房应用NPPV救治,治疗1~2h、24h后血气分析、HR、RR明显改善的患者预后较好。     

无创正压机械通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病失败病例分析

目的探讨无创正压机械通气（NIPPV）治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭失败病例的相关因素,为NIPPV临床应用提供可能的依据。方法将91例COPD患者分为成功组和失败组。监测两组患者的生命体征、血气分析、血常规、电解质、肝肾功能等指标,多因素分析患者年龄、呼吸衰竭病程、合并症。观察患者的依从性、上机后开始床旁监测时间、应用呼吸机早期病情的变化。结果在NIPPV早期依从性方面,失败组明显低于成功组,失败组初次使用呼吸机的监护时间明显低于成功组。在APACHEⅡ评分方面,失败组明显高于成功组。两组初始血气分析指标比较无明显差异。但随着通气时间的延长,成功组明显好转,而失败组无明显变化。NIPPV在抢救COPD引起的呼吸衰竭成功率为74．72％,两组其余指标比较差异有统计学意义。结论NIPPV在抢救COPD伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭有重要的临床价值,使用NIPPV可早期监测患者的病情变化。     

Outcomes of patients with acute respiratory failure after abdominal surgery treated with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the physiologic and clinical effects of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients who have acute respiratory failure (ARF) after abdominal surgery. We evaluated our clinical experience with the use of NPPV in the treatment of ARF after abdominal surgery. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated NPPV use during a 2-year period in a medical-surgical ICU of a university hospital. We documented demographic and diagnostic data, gas exchange, and clinical outcomes. We compared patients who were not intubated to those who were intubated after a trial of NPPV. RESULTS: Of 72 patients with ARF after abdominal surgery who were treated with NPPV, 48 patients avoided intubation (67%). Patients in the intubated and nonintubated groups had similar demographic characteristics, and similar American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status and simplified acute physiology score II scores at admission. The intubated group had a significantly lower Pa(O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (Fi(O2)) ratio (123 +/- 62 mm Hg vs 194 +/- 76 mm Hg, p < 0.01) and more extended bilateral alveolar infiltrates (67% vs 31%, p < 0.01) than the non-intubated group. Within the first NPPV observation period, the Pa(O2)/Fi(O2) increased (+ 36 +/- 29% [+/- SD], p = 0.04) and the respiratory rate decreased (28.2 +/- 3.4 breaths/min vs 23.1 +/- 3.8 breaths/min, p < 0.01) significantly only in the non-intubated group. The non-intubated group had significantly lower length of ICU stay (17.3 +/- 10.9 days vs 34.1 +/- 28.5 days, p < 0.01) and mortality rate (6% vs 29%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: NPPV may be an alternative to conventional ventilation in selected patients with ARF after abdominal surgery who require ventilatory support.     

无创正压通气治疗矽肺合并呼吸衰竭14例临床研究

目的探讨无创正压通气在矽肺合并呼吸衰竭患者的疗效以及对其病死率的影响。方法选择接受无创呼吸机治疗的病人矽肺合并呼吸衰竭患者14例做为试验组,观察治疗前后pH、PaCO2、SPO2、PaO2变化,并与对照组37例未上无创通气患者就好转出院率、病死率进行比较。结果治疗组SPO2、PaO2短时间均有明显上升,不论合并COPD还是以肺纤维化为主患者,治疗前后有统计学差异(P<0.05),而pH、PaCO2受矽肺合并COPD或肺纤维化程度不同影响,综合分析后pH治疗前后无明显差异,P>0.05。治疗组14例成功撤机出院11例,有效率达79%。对照组37例经治疗出院21例,有效率仅56%,两组比较差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论无创正压通气在矽肺合并呼吸衰竭患者的疗效肯定,可明显降低病死率。     

舒利迭联合无创正压通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病并呼吸衰竭患者的效果及安全性

<正>慢性阻塞性肺疾病(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,COPD)急性加重时可并发呼吸衰竭[1-2]。无创正压通气(noninvasive positive pressure ventilation,NIPPV)治疗对患者创伤小,耐受性好,且操作简单方便,安全性高,被老年患者广泛接受[3]。NIPPV作为治疗COPD合并呼吸衰竭患者的重要手段,明显降低了COPD合并呼吸衰竭患者的气管插管率及病死率[4-5]。舒利迭,又称沙美特罗替卡松,是一种糖皮质激素与长效β2-肾上腺素受体激动剂的复合剂,能够有效减轻患者哮喘症状,抑制患者气道重塑,目前已常规应用于COPD的治疗中[6-7]。本文探讨了舒利迭联合NIPPV治疗COPD并呼吸衰竭患者效果及安全性,报道如下。     

Treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic respiratory failure: integrated use of negative pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) can be treated with either invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), which can spare the complications of artificial airways. To evaluate the efficacy of an integrated approach using negative pressure ventilation (NPV) with iron lung and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), we performed a prospective study in a group of patients admitted to our respiratory ICU (RICU) for ARF due to exacerbation of chronic respiratory failure (CRF). SETTING: RICU at "R. Silvestrini" Hospital in Perugia, Italy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-two consecutive patients were included in the study and treated with iron lung as first choice or, when contraindicated or not tolerated, with NPPV using a nasal or facial mask. After 2 h of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), the patients were reevaluated; in case of clinical deterioration, patients receiving NPV were switched to NPPV. When NPPV as a first or second line of treatment failed the patients were intubated. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two patients received NIMV, 97 with iron lung as the first choice of treatment, and 55 with NPPV. Six patients treated with NPV were switched to NPPV during the first 2 h of treatment. Twenty-five patients required IMV. The success rate of the integrated use of NIMV (NPV plus NPPV) was 81.6%, compared to that of NPV (83.5%) and NPPV (70.5%). Twenty-one patients (13.8%) required tracheostomy; the duration of hospital stay was significantly lower in patients treated with NIMV only. Thirty patients required mechanical ventilation at home. Few severe complications were observed in patients receiving IMV. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated use of two NIMV techniques is effective in patients with acute exacerbation of CRF. In most cases intubation and tracheostomy were avoided, thus reducing the complication rate of mechanical ventilation.     

Sexuality in patients with noninvasive mechanical ventilation due to chronic respiratory failure.

In patients with chronic respiratory failure (CRF) noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV) improves quality of life. We studied some basic issues concerning sexuality in patients with NMV. In 383 patients with NMV for CRF (age, > 40 yr) physiologic data (lung function, blood gases, and exercise) were taken from within the 6 mo period before enrollment. The questionnaire was focused on sexuality after initiation of NMV. Of the patients, 54.3% sent back the questionnaire. NMV was used for 41.1 +/- 27.0 mo. A total of 34.1% of patients were sexually active. Compared with patients receiving NMV, control persons had a higher rate of sexual activity (84%, p < 0.0001) and masturbation rate (13 versus 40%). Sexually active patients had greater VC (2.1 versus 1.8 L), higher FEV(1) (1.4 versus 1.1 L), higher Pa(O(2)) at rest (64.0 versus 60.4 mm Hg), a higher maximal work load (72.0 versus 58.8 W), were younger, and most of them were married or had sexual partners. Changes in sexual activity after NMV initiation were reported to be as follows: "Nothing changed," 46.3%; "less active," 35.8%; "more active," 12.6%; and "fantasy increased," 10.5%. Increased sexual fantasy predominated in men. "Sexually active" patients with NMV had sexual intercourse 5.4 +/- 4.8 times per month. Sexuality in patients receiving NMV for CRF is markedly reduced compared with normal subjects. In half of the patients, sexual activity is influenced by initiation of NMV.     

Efficacy of domiciliary noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients]

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical features and efficacy of domiciliary noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 16 patients with COPD who received NPPV between March 1996 and April 2005. The patient characteristics, clinical features, a change in arterial PaCO2 and prognoses were evaluated. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 15 males and 1 female, mean age 68.4 +/- 9.9 yrs. The mean values of pulmonary function tests were as follows; FEV1 = 0.73L, FEV1% = 29.8%, VC = 2.49L, %VC = 77.5%, RV/ TLC 55.4%, PaO2 59.8 Torr, PaCO2 71.4 Torr (on admission). Fourteen of 16 patients presented desaturation in the night and 6 patients had sleep apnea syndrome. Eight of the 16 patients received NPPV during acute exacerbation. NPPV yielded dramatic improvement in daytime hypercapnia and clinical symptoms. However, arterial PaCO2 gradually elevated during the long-term clinical course. The duration of treatment was from 2 months to 9 years, with a mean value of 2.3 years. The cause of death of 7 patients was respiratory failure in 5 cases and lung cancer in 2, respectively, and the mortality was significantly higher in patients who received NPPV during acute exacerbation than stable COPD patients receiving NPPV. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term improvement in daytime clinical symptoms and arterial blood gas tensions can be achieved by NPPV in patients with COPD.     

BiPAP无创通气在COPD并严重呼吸衰竭中的应用

目的观察双水平无创正压通气(BiPAP)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)合并严重型呼吸衰竭患者的临床疗效。方法COPD急性加重并发严重型呼吸衰竭的患者42例分为两组,常规治疗组21例,给予氧疗、药物等常规治疗,BiPAP组21例,给予常规治疗的同时加用BiPAP无创通气。结果BiPAP组治疗后2h,PaO2即有显著上升(与治疗前比较p<0.05)。治疗后6h、24h,PH值上升、PaCO2下降,与治疗前比较均有显著差异(p<0.05)。而常规治疗组治疗前后均无显著差异(p>0.05),BiPAP组治疗失败率、气管插管率均明显低于常规治疗组(p<0.05),病死率亦低于常规治疗组,但尚无显著差异(p>0.05)。结论对COPD合并严重型呼吸衰竭的患者,BiPAP无创通气仍然是一种有效的手段,可以较快地改善动脉血气,减少气管插管率和治疗失败率。