以肺部感染控制窗为切换点进行有创-无创序贯治疗在COPD呼吸衰竭中的应用

评价以肺部感染控制窗为切换点进行有创-无创序贯性机械通气治疗COPD呼吸衰竭患者的应用价值.方法:以2001年11月至2004年10月呼吸科重症监护室(RICU)收治的COPD严重呼吸衰竭需要机械通气的76例患者为研究对象.临床出现"肺部感染控制窗"(出窗)后,随机分为有创-无创序贯性治疗组(序贯组)和常规治疗组(对照组).序贯组立即拔除气管插管,应用鼻罩/口鼻罩双水平气道正压(BiPAP)无创机械通气支持直至脱机;对照组则继续常规有创机械通气,以SIMV+PSV方式脱机.动态观察两组患者的感染、通气、氧合及生命征等指标,比较两组患者的肺部感染控制窗出现时间、机械通气时间、住院时间、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率和患者的转归.结果:序贯组和对照组各38例,两组患者在治疗前的基本情况差异无显著性(P>0.05);出窗时间和出窗时的情况差异无显著性(P>0.05);序贯组与对照组的有创机械通气时间分别为(7.5±1.9) d和(23.5±9.5) d(P<0.01);总机械通气时间分别为(12.5±4.0) d和(23.5±9.5) d(P<0.05);序贯组的RICU时间和总住院时间分别为(9.5±2.8) d和(15.5±3.5) d,均分别短于对照组的(23.5±9.5) d和(29.5±12.0) d(均P<0.05);序贯组的VAP发生率、再插管率、住院病死率分别为18.4%(7/38),13.2%(5/38)和7.9%(3/38),均分别低于对照组的39.5%(15/38),34.2%(13/38)和28.9%(11/38)(均P<0.05).结论:对COPD重症呼吸衰竭需要气管插管机械通气的患者,以肺部感染控制窗为切换时机,采用有创-无创序贯性机械通气治疗,可以缩短机械通气时间和住院时间,降低VAP发生率、再插管率及住院死亡率,是一项值得推广的有效机械通气策略.

Application of sequential noninvasive following invasive mechanical ventilation in COPD patients with severe respiratory failure by investigating the appearance of pulmonary-infection-control-window

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the application of sequential noninvasive following invasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with severe respiratory failure by investigating the appearance of pulmonary-infection-control-window. METHODS: From November 2001 to October 2004, 76 case of COPD patients with severe respiratory failure due to pulmonary infection were intubated and recruited in the study. When the pulmonary infection was significantly controlled (the time of pulmonary infection control was called PIC window) by the antibiotic and comprehensive therapy, all cases were randomized into noninvasive veatiation group (NIV) and control group. The early extubation was conducted and followed by noninvasive mechanical ventilation via facial mask with bilevel positive airway pressure mode immediately in the NIV group. Conventional invasive synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) plus pressure support ventilation (PSV) was used as the weaning technique in the control group. RESULTS: Thirty eight cases among 76 patients were in the NIV group, and the rest in the control group. The NIV group and the control group had similar age, sex, APACHE scores, RR, HR, MAP, PaO2 and PaCO2 at the time of commencement and PIC window (P > 0.05). The time of PIC window was (7.5 +/- 1.9) d in the NIV group, and (8.0 +/- 2.5) d in the control group (P > 0.05). In the NIV group, the durations of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and total MV were (7.5 +/- 1.9) d and (12.5 +/- 4.0) d respectively, while the durations were (23.5 +/- 9.5) d in the control group (P < 0.05). The durations of RICU stay and hospital stay were shorter than that in the control group. The incidence of ventilation associated pneumonia (VAP) was 18.4% (7/38) in the NIV group, 39.5% (15/38) in the control group respectively (P < 0.05). The incidence of reintubation was 13.2% (5/38) in the NIV group, 34.2% (13/38) in the control group respectively (P < 0.05). Hospital mortality was 7.9% (3/38) in the NIV group, and 28.9% (11/38) in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In those COPD patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilantion who have severe respiratory failure due to pulmonary infection, sequential noninvasive following invasive mechanical ventilation at the appearance of PIC window can significantly reduce the MV duration, the length of RICU stay and hospital stay, and decrease the occurrence of VAP, reintubation and hospital mortality as well. So it is an efficient strategy to be generalized.