湿化与未湿化中低流量鼻导管吸氧患者呼吸道症状的观察

目的探讨常规湿化与未湿化中低流量(4L/min)鼻导管吸氧对患者呼吸道症状的影响是否有明显差异。方法按患者入住时间分为,①持续中低流量鼻导管吸氧12h的患者分为常规湿化吸氧组(湿化组)和未经湿化吸氧组(未湿化组);②持续中低流量鼻导管吸氧时间24h的患者,自身常规湿化吸氧和未经湿化吸氧,观察比较患者的呼吸道反应。结果鼻咽喉部干燥感为本研究中出现的唯一症状。方法1观察540例中湿化组235例,主诉鼻咽喉部干燥者21例,干燥组305例,主诉鼻咽喉部干燥者36例,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);方法2观察226例,其中在湿化吸氧过程中主诉鼻咽喉部干燥者9例,改为未湿化吸氧后症状无明显加重;在未经湿化吸氧过程中主诉鼻咽喉部干燥者11例,改为湿化吸氧后症状无明显减轻,两种不同的吸氧方式对患者呼吸道影响差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论中低流量鼻导管吸氧无需常规湿化。

A comparison study on the respiratory symptoms between patients receiving low-to-mid flow humidified and dry oxygen by nasal cannula

Objective To explore the effect of humidification of oxygen delivered by nasal cannula on the respiratory symptoms. Method A total of 540 patients receiving low-to-mid flow oxygen therapy (<4L/min) by nasal cannula for more than 12 hours were assigned to receive humidified (n=235) or dry (n=305)oxygen. While 226 patients receiving a low-to-mid flow oxygen therapy for more than 24 hours received humidified or dry oxygen respectively. The patients' respiratory symptoms were observed and recorded. Results Dryness over naso-pharyngeal region was the only symptom reported by patients in this study. There was no significant difference on the rate of dryness over naso-pharyngeal region between patients receiving humidified oxygen and patients receiving dry oxygen (P>0.05) either in the same patients when receiving dry and humidified oxygen (P>0.05). Conclusion Routine humidification is not necessary in low-to-mid flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula.