氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效及优缺点分析
|
摘要
目的对比分析氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效和优缺点。方法 90例小儿哮喘疾病患儿纳入本次研究,依据入院号的单双号分对照组(空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗)和研究组(氧驱动雾化吸入治疗),各45例,对比两组患儿临床治疗状况。结果研究组治疗总疗效率为91.11%,高于对照组的75.56%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患儿治疗前血氧饱和度(Sa O2)指数对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组治疗后Sa O2指数变化优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组患儿咳嗽胸闷消失时间、反复喘息消失时间、呼吸困难恢复正常时间、住院时间均短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前两组患儿最大呼气流量对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗后,研究组最大呼气流量明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论临床治疗小儿哮喘疾病时可给予氧驱动雾化吸入或空气压缩泵雾化吸入方式,但氧驱动雾化治疗的疗效更为理想,且更为安全可靠,临床应用性和推广性较大。
Objective To compare and analyze clinical effect and advantages and disadvantages by oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation and air compressor pump aerosol inhalation in the treatment of pediatric asthma. Methods A total of 90 pediatric asthma patients in this research were divided by admission order into control group(air compressor pump aerosol inhalation for treatment)and research group(oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation for treatment), with 45 cases in each group. Comparison was made on clinical treatment condition between the two groups. Results The research group had higher total effective rate in treatment as 91.11% than 75.56% in the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of oxyhemoglobin saturation(Sa O2) index before treatment between the two groups(P>0.05). The research group had better changes of Sa O2 after treatment than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). The research group had all shorter cough and chest distress disappearance time, recurrent wheezing disappearance time, dyspnea recovery time, and hospital stay time than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of peak expiratory flow before treatment between the two groups(P>0.05). After treatment, the research group had obviously higher peak expiratory flow than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). Conclusion Oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation and air compressor pump aerosol inhalation are feasible in clinical treatment of pediatric asthma, and oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation provides more ideal effect, and high safety and creditability. This method contains high clinical applicability and generalization performance.
Objective To compare and analyze clinical effect and advantages and disadvantages by oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation and air compressor pump aerosol inhalation in the treatment of pediatric asthma. Methods A total of 90 pediatric asthma patients in this research were divided by admission order into control group(air compressor pump aerosol inhalation for treatment)and research group(oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation for treatment), with 45 cases in each group. Comparison was made on clinical treatment condition between the two groups. Results The research group had higher total effective rate in treatment as 91.11% than 75.56% in the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of oxyhemoglobin saturation(Sa O2) index before treatment between the two groups(P>0.05). The research group had better changes of Sa O2 after treatment than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). The research group had all shorter cough and chest distress disappearance time, recurrent wheezing disappearance time, dyspnea recovery time, and hospital stay time than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of peak expiratory flow before treatment between the two groups(P>0.05). After treatment, the research group had obviously higher peak expiratory flow than the control group, and their difference had statistical significance(P<0.05). Conclusion Oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation and air compressor pump aerosol inhalation are feasible in clinical treatment of pediatric asthma, and oxygen atomizing aerosol inhalation provides more ideal effect, and high safety and creditability. This method contains high clinical applicability and generalization performance.
引文
[1]王栋,孙艳.雾化吸入布地奈德治疗小儿哮喘100例疗效及免疫功能对比观察.陕西医学杂志,2016,45(5):530-531.
[2]刁秀伟,谢艳.硫酸镁与硫酸特布他林雾化液联合雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效观察.中国医院用药评价与分析,2016,16(3):319-321.
[3]汤彩娥.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中外医学研究,2014,23(26):68-69.
[4]梁忠伟.不同雾化吸入方式治疗小儿哮喘临床效果评价.临床医学研究与实践,2016,1(16):86.
[5]刘小平.雾化吸入辅助中医外治法治疗小儿哮喘的护理分析.医学信息,2016,29(35):217-218.
[6]钟娟.小儿哮喘急性发作氧动力雾化吸入的舒适护理体会.基层医学论坛,2017,21(2):234-235.
[7]方敏超,王依,翟秀兴.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效及优缺点分析.中国实用医药,2016,11(33):46-47.
[8]艾美莲,花响岭,胡新和.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.当代医学,2009,15(33):11-13.
[9]薛雄豪.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效比较.中国民族民间医药,2014,23(5):68-69.
[10]陈志勇,廖国仁.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗儿童哮喘的对比研究.国际医药卫生导报,2014,20(10):1373-1375.
[11]夏木西努尔·提衣甫.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效及优缺点对比.世界中医药,2016(B03):1072.
[12]刘永焕.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中国医学工程,2014(2):35.
[13]王道斌.对比分析氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效.医药与保健,2015(4):53-54.
[14]罗小容,何勇,廖国好.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效观察及优缺点分析.当代医学,2017,23(9):23-25.
[15]万永霞,刘远昌,董基亮.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘临床效果对比分析.泰山医学院学报,2016,37(5):563-564.
[16]沈远征.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘临床疗效对比分析.现代诊断与治疗,2014(9):2083-2084.
[17]侯伟.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗84例小儿哮喘的比较研究分析.中国医药指南,2015(20):3-4.
[18]岑惠玲.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效.白求恩医学杂志,2014,12(2):124-126.
[19]夏文芬.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效比较.现代实用医学,2013,25(8):903-904.
[20]苏锦友.氧气驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中国实用医药,2013,8(26):160-161.
[2]刁秀伟,谢艳.硫酸镁与硫酸特布他林雾化液联合雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效观察.中国医院用药评价与分析,2016,16(3):319-321.
[3]汤彩娥.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中外医学研究,2014,23(26):68-69.
[4]梁忠伟.不同雾化吸入方式治疗小儿哮喘临床效果评价.临床医学研究与实践,2016,1(16):86.
[5]刘小平.雾化吸入辅助中医外治法治疗小儿哮喘的护理分析.医学信息,2016,29(35):217-218.
[6]钟娟.小儿哮喘急性发作氧动力雾化吸入的舒适护理体会.基层医学论坛,2017,21(2):234-235.
[7]方敏超,王依,翟秀兴.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效及优缺点分析.中国实用医药,2016,11(33):46-47.
[8]艾美莲,花响岭,胡新和.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.当代医学,2009,15(33):11-13.
[9]薛雄豪.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效比较.中国民族民间医药,2014,23(5):68-69.
[10]陈志勇,廖国仁.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗儿童哮喘的对比研究.国际医药卫生导报,2014,20(10):1373-1375.
[11]夏木西努尔·提衣甫.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效及优缺点对比.世界中医药,2016(B03):1072.
[12]刘永焕.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中国医学工程,2014(2):35.
[13]王道斌.对比分析氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效.医药与保健,2015(4):53-54.
[14]罗小容,何勇,廖国好.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效观察及优缺点分析.当代医学,2017,23(9):23-25.
[15]万永霞,刘远昌,董基亮.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘临床效果对比分析.泰山医学院学报,2016,37(5):563-564.
[16]沈远征.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘临床疗效对比分析.现代诊断与治疗,2014(9):2083-2084.
[17]侯伟.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗84例小儿哮喘的比较研究分析.中国医药指南,2015(20):3-4.
[18]岑惠玲.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效.白求恩医学杂志,2014,12(2):124-126.
[19]夏文芬.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的疗效比较.现代实用医学,2013,25(8):903-904.
[20]苏锦友.氧气驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较.中国实用医药,2013,8(26):160-161.