气管切开病人两种湿化方法的效果比较

目的探讨气管切开病人气道的最佳湿化方式。方法50例气管切开病人随机分为两组，对照组25例，用输液泵将湿化液24h持续泵入气管内实施气道湿化；实验组25例，用输液泵将湿化液泵入经过改良的氧气驱动雾化器，以持续氧气驱动雾化吸入的方法湿化气道。比较两组在湿化效果、并发症、每日吸痰次数、气管切开置管时间的不同以及对血氧饱和度的影响。结果实验组在湿化效果方面优于对照组，并发症发生少（P〈0．05）；实验组每日吸痰次数少，气管切开置管时间缩短，与对照组比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。两种湿化方式对血氧饱和度的影响差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论持续氧气驱动雾化吸入对于气管切开病人气道湿化效果优于持续湿化液泵入。

Comparative study of two different airway humidity therapies for patients with tracheotomy

Objective To study the best way of airway humidity therapy on patients with tracheotomy.Methods Fifty patients with tracheotomy were randomly divided into two groups.In the cantrol group 25patients were given continuous airway humidity by pumping humidification fluid into the trachea with infusion pumps while in the experiment group 25 patients were added the modified oxgen-drive atomizing based on the control group.The difference between two groups in humidification effect,the complication,the number of daily suctioning,the duration of endotracheal intubation,and the influence for oxygen saturation of blood were compared.Results The experimental group showed better effect on airway humidity than that in the controlgroup(P<0.05).The complication occurred fewer in the experimental group than that in the control group(P<0.05).The number of daily suctioning and the time of endotraeheal intubation were less in the experimentalgroup than that in the control group(P<0.01).However,there was no significant difference in the influence on the oxygen saturation of blood(P>0.05).Conclusions Continuous oxygen-drive atomizing is more effective on airway humidity than pumping humidification fluid into the trachea for patients with traeheotomy.