不同的雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患者的疗效探讨及护理
|
摘要
目的研究探讨不同的雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患者的疗效观察及护理。方法该实验在该院进行,时间选择2017年1月—2018年6月收治的支气管哮喘患者80例为研究对象,随机均分两组,每组均各40例,以超声雾化吸入治疗为对照组,以压缩雾化吸入治疗为观察组,分析不同的雾化吸入方法治疗的价值,并对比两组的疗效、症状消失时间。结果观察组疗效(92.5%)较对照组(80.0%)高(χ~2=9.125,P=0.024),观察组的咳嗽消失时间(4.5±1.5)d、气喘消失时间(3.0±1.3)d、肺啰音消失时间(3.1±1.5)d少于对照组(7.3±1.9)d、(6.1±2.1)d、(6.2±1.8)d,差异有统计学意义(t=8.118,P=0.017,t=4.312,P=0.025,t=4.008,P=0.036)。结论对于支气管哮喘患者,采取压缩雾化吸入治疗,效果显著,可以增强疗效,且安全性较高,不良反应少,值得在今后的治疗护理中应用。
Objective To investigate the efficacy and nursing of different aerosol inhalation methods in patients with bronchial asthma. Methods This experiment was conducted in our hospital. 80 patients with bronchial asthma admitted from January 2017 to June 2018 were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups, each with 40 cases, the control group was treated with ultrasonic nebulization. The compressed aerosol inhalation treatment was used as the observation group, and the value of different aerosol inhalation methods was analyzed, and the efficacy and symptom disappearance time of the two groups were compared. Results The efficacy of the observation group(92.5%)was higher than that of the control group(80.0%)(χ~2=9.125, P=0.024). The cough disappearance time(4.5±1.5) d and the asthma disappearance time(3.0±1.3) d, the disappearance time of pulmonary arpakes(3.1±1.5)d was less than that of the control group(7.3±1.9)d,(6.1±2.1)d,(6.2±1.8)d, the difference was statistically significant(t=8.118, P=0.017,t=4.312, P=0.025,t=4.008, P=0.036). Conclusion For patients with bronchial asthma, compression and atomization inhalation treatment is effective, which can enhance the curative effect, and has higher safety and less adverse reactions,which is worthy of application in future treatment and nursing.
Objective To investigate the efficacy and nursing of different aerosol inhalation methods in patients with bronchial asthma. Methods This experiment was conducted in our hospital. 80 patients with bronchial asthma admitted from January 2017 to June 2018 were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups, each with 40 cases, the control group was treated with ultrasonic nebulization. The compressed aerosol inhalation treatment was used as the observation group, and the value of different aerosol inhalation methods was analyzed, and the efficacy and symptom disappearance time of the two groups were compared. Results The efficacy of the observation group(92.5%)was higher than that of the control group(80.0%)(χ~2=9.125, P=0.024). The cough disappearance time(4.5±1.5) d and the asthma disappearance time(3.0±1.3) d, the disappearance time of pulmonary arpakes(3.1±1.5)d was less than that of the control group(7.3±1.9)d,(6.1±2.1)d,(6.2±1.8)d, the difference was statistically significant(t=8.118, P=0.017,t=4.312, P=0.025,t=4.008, P=0.036). Conclusion For patients with bronchial asthma, compression and atomization inhalation treatment is effective, which can enhance the curative effect, and has higher safety and less adverse reactions,which is worthy of application in future treatment and nursing.
引文
[1]张特,罗小春,王斌,等.阿莫西林克拉维酸钾干混悬剂联合异丙托溴铵雾化吸入治疗支气管哮喘患者合并肺部感染的疗效[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2018,28(11):1654-1657.
[2]谭知遇.沙丁胺醇两种雾化吸入方法治疗小儿支气管哮喘急性发作期的疗效比较[J].中国处方药,2018,16(3):88-89.
[3]李洪林.黄芪注射液雾化吸入联合无创正压通气治疗重症支气管哮喘疗效及对血浆8-异前列腺素、IL-25、ET-1水平的影响[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2018,27(2):143-146.
[4]林明影,陈求珠.空气压缩泵对比超声雾化吸入方法治疗小儿哮喘的疗效观察[J].中国妇幼保健,2017,32(1):169-171.
[5]陈利霞,易绘,宋红梅.不同雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患儿的疗效观察[J].中国民族民间医药,2015,24(14):102-103.
[6]陆梅,周琦.不同的雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患者的疗效观察及护理[J].当代护士,2014(12下旬刊):32-33.
[7]侯小瑞.不同雾化吸入方式治疗支气管哮喘疗效比较[J].临床合理用药杂志,2014,7(29):112.
[8]钱琴芬.不同雾化吸入方法治疗小儿哮喘临床对比研究[J].工企医刊,2014,27(3):767-768.
[9]白仙草,卢经伟.沙丁胺醇两种雾化吸入方法治疗支气管哮喘急性发作期的疗效比较[J].临床肺科杂志,2014,19(6):1112-1114.
[10]胡丽娟,罗秀容,李淑兰.护理干预对支气管哮喘患儿雾化吸入依从性的影响研究[J].检验医学与临床,2014,11(5):711-712.
[2]谭知遇.沙丁胺醇两种雾化吸入方法治疗小儿支气管哮喘急性发作期的疗效比较[J].中国处方药,2018,16(3):88-89.
[3]李洪林.黄芪注射液雾化吸入联合无创正压通气治疗重症支气管哮喘疗效及对血浆8-异前列腺素、IL-25、ET-1水平的影响[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2018,27(2):143-146.
[4]林明影,陈求珠.空气压缩泵对比超声雾化吸入方法治疗小儿哮喘的疗效观察[J].中国妇幼保健,2017,32(1):169-171.
[5]陈利霞,易绘,宋红梅.不同雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患儿的疗效观察[J].中国民族民间医药,2015,24(14):102-103.
[6]陆梅,周琦.不同的雾化吸入方法对支气管哮喘患者的疗效观察及护理[J].当代护士,2014(12下旬刊):32-33.
[7]侯小瑞.不同雾化吸入方式治疗支气管哮喘疗效比较[J].临床合理用药杂志,2014,7(29):112.
[8]钱琴芬.不同雾化吸入方法治疗小儿哮喘临床对比研究[J].工企医刊,2014,27(3):767-768.
[9]白仙草,卢经伟.沙丁胺醇两种雾化吸入方法治疗支气管哮喘急性发作期的疗效比较[J].临床肺科杂志,2014,19(6):1112-1114.
[10]胡丽娟,罗秀容,李淑兰.护理干预对支气管哮喘患儿雾化吸入依从性的影响研究[J].检验医学与临床,2014,11(5):711-712.