经鼻双水平正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床研究

摘要
图/表
参考文献(24)
相关文章 (3)

全文: PDF (710 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的观察经鼻双水平正压通气（nBiPAP）治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征（RDS）的临床效果。方法选择2016年7月~2017年2月在扬州大学医学院附属淮安妇幼保健院新生儿医学中心住院且需要无创正压辅助通气支持的78例RDS早产儿为研究对象。按照通气模式分为经鼻持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）组（n=37）和nBiPAP组（n=41），比较两组早产儿在通气0、12、24、48、72 h时的通气参数、血气分析结果、辅助通气时间、通气失败改有创通气比例、无创通气时间及并发症发生情况。结果 ①随着通气时间的延长，两组患儿吸入氧浓度（FiO2）及呼气末正压（PEEP）均呈逐渐下降趋势，在0 h及72 h两组比较差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05），在12、24、48 h nBiPAP组参数明显低于nCPAP组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。②随着通气时间的延长，两组患儿二氧化碳分压（PCO2）逐渐下降，在0 h及72 h两组差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05），在12、24、48 h nBiPAP组PCO2低于nCPAP组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。两组动脉血氧分压/吸入氧浓度比值（P/F）及动脉/肺泡氧分压比值（PaO2/PAO2）随通气时间延长均呈逐渐升高趋势，在0、72 h两组差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）；在12、24、48 h nBiPAP组均高于nCPAP组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。③两组患儿通气失败改有创通气比例、无创通气时间、并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 nBiPAP治疗早产儿RDS有效，与nCPAP比较有一定优势。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	高子波韩良荣潘兆军赵玉祥张文杰苗业权武荣▲

关键词 ：经鼻双水平气道正压通气, 经鼻持续气道正压通气, 呼吸窘迫综合征, 早产儿

Abstract：Objective To observe the clinical effect of nasal biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation (nBiPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) of premature infants. Methods 78 cases of RDS preterm children who were hospitalized in Neonatal Medical Center, Huai′an Maternal and Child Health Care Center Affiliated to Yangzhou University Medical School and treated with non-invasive positive pressure auxiliary ventilation from July 2016 to February 2017 were selected. According to the ventilation mode, patients were divided into the nCPAP group (n = 37) and nBiPAP group (n = 41). The ventilation parameters, blood gas analysis at 0, 12, 24, 48, 72 h of ventilate, auxiliary ventilation time, ventilation failure rate, noninvasive ventilation time and complications were compared between the two groups. Results ①With the prolongation of ventilation time, the levels of inhaled oxygen (FiO2) and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the two groups gradually decreased. There were no significant differences in FiO2 and PEEP between the two groups at 0 h and 72 h (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between the two groups at 12, 24, 48 h, the nBiPAP group were lower than the nCPAP group (P < 0.05). ②With the prolongation of ventilation time, the levels of PCO2 in the two groups gradually decreased. There were no significant differences in PCO2 between the two groups at 0 h and 72 h (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between the two groups at 12, 24, 48 h, the nBiPAP group were lower than the nCPAP group (P < 0.05). With the prolongation of ventilation time, the levels of P/F and PaO2/PAO2 in the two groups gradually increased. There were no significant differences in P/F and PaO2/PAO2 between the two groups at 0 h and 72 h (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between the two groups at 12, 24, 48 h, the nBiPAP group were higher than the nCPAP group (P < 0.05). ③There were no significant differences in ventilation failure rate, noninvasive ventilation time and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion nBiPAP is effective in the treatment of RDS of preterm infants, and it has certain advantages compared with nCPAP.

Key words： Nasal biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation Nasal continuous positive airway pressure Respiratory distress syndrome Preterm infants

基金资助:江苏省淮安市重点研发计划（社会发展）项目（HAS2015004）。

通讯作者: ▲通讯作者

作者简介: 高子波（1976.9-），男，硕士，副主任医师；研究方向：新生儿医学。

引用本文:

高子波韩良荣潘兆军赵玉祥张文杰苗业权武荣▲. 经鼻双水平正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床研究[J]. 中国医药导报, 2017, 14(24): 130-134.
GAO Zibo HAN Liangrong PAN Zhaojun ZHAO Yuxiang ZHANG Wenjie MIAO Yequan WU Rong▲. Clinical study of nasal biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome of preterm infants. 中国医药导报, 2017, 14(24): 130-134.

链接本文:

http://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/ 或 http://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/Y2017/V14/I24/130

[1] Sakonidou S，Dhaliwal J. The management of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants（European Consensus Guidelines-2013 update）[J]. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed，2015，100（5）：257-259.
[2] Fetusnewborn CO， Pediatrics AAO. Respiratory support in preterm infants at birthv [J]. Pediatrics，2014，133（1）：171-174.
[3] Migliori C，Motta M，Angeli A. Nasal bilevel vs. continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants [J]. Pediatr Pulmonol，2005，40（5）：426-430.
[4] Lista G，Casoldi F，Fontana P，et al. Nasal CPAP versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome：a randomised control trial [J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed，2010，95（2）：85-89.
[5] 邵肖梅，叶鸿瑁，丘小汕.实用新生儿学[M].4版.北京：人民卫生出版社，2011：396-397.
[6] 中华医学会儿科学分会新生儿学组.新生儿机械通气常规[J].中华儿科杂志，2015，53（5）：327-330.
[7] Thomson MA，Yoder BA，Winter VT，et al. Treatment of immature baboons for 28 days with early nasal continuous positive airway pressure [J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med，2004，69（9）：1054-1062.
[8] Bancalari E，Claure N. The evidence for noninvasive ventilation [J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed，2013，98（2）：98-102.
[9] Mahmoud RA，Roehr CC，Schmalisch G. Current methods of non-invasive ventilatory support for neonates [J]. Paediatr Respir Rev，2011，12（3）：196-205.
[10] 喻文亮，钱素云，陶建平.小儿机械通气[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社，2010：270-273.
[11] 舒桂华，朱玲玲，徐翔，等.不同正压通气方式联合肺表面活性物质在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合症中的应用[J].中国新生儿科杂志，2012，27（4）：223-227.
[12] 麦隽，綦巧雯，蔡璇，等.双水平正压通气和经鼻持续呼吸道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征初始治疗中应用比较[J].中国妇幼保健，2015，30（11）：1690-1694.
[13] 高翔宇，杨波，黑明燕，等.三种无创正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合症初始治疗中应用的随机对照研究[J].中华儿科杂志，2014，52（1）：34-40.
[14] 蔡琳，李晓东，田青.经鼻双水平正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合症临床疗效[J].中国新生儿科杂志，2015， 30（5）：361-363.
[15] Aquilano G，Galletti S，Aceti A，et al. Bi-level CPAP does not change central blood flow in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome [J]. Ital J Pediatr，2014， 21（6）：41-46.
[16] 代玉静，苏艳霞，佟丽.双水平气道正压通气序贯治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合症的疗效[J].中国新生儿科杂志，2015，30（1）：56-58.
[17] 张俊亮，钱新华，王琴，等.鼻塞双水平正压通气用于呼吸窘迫综合症早产儿拔管的临床研究[J].临床儿科杂志，2013，31（8）：710-714.
[18] 李芬，彭华保，朱文军，等.经鼻双水平正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸暂停临床分析[J].中国新生儿科杂志，2014， 29（6）：408-410.
[19] Rong ZH，Li WB，Liu W，et al. Nasal bi-level positive airway pressure（BiPAP）versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure（CPAP）in preterm infants ≤32 weeks：A retrospective cohort study [J]. J Paediatr Child Health，2016， 52（5）：493-498.
[20] Millar D，Kirpalani H，Lemyre B，et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation（NIPPV）does not confer benefit over nasal CPAP（NCPAP）in extremely low birth weight（ELBW）infants-an international randomised trial [J]. Arch Dis Child，2012，97（1）：180-186.
[21] Millar D，Lemyre B，Kirpalani H，et al. A comparison of bilevel and ventilator-delivered non-invasive respiratory support [J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal ED，2016，101（1）：21-25.
[22] 查琳，刘伟，袁义，等.静脉高营养与经口、鼻胃管喂养对早产儿生长发育影响的比较[J].疑难病杂志，2015， 14（8）：832-834.DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1671-6450.2015.08. 018.
[23] Liptsen E，Aghai ZH，Pyon KH，et al. Work of breathing during nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants： a comparison of bubble versus variable-flow devices [J]. J Perinatol，2005，25（7）：453-458.
[24] Gupta S，Sinha SK，Tin W，et al. A randomized controlled trial of post-extubation bubble continuous positive airway pressure versus Infant Flow Driver continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome [J]. J Pediatr，2009，154（5）：645-650.