经鼻间歇正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸暂停的疗效观察被引量：8

Efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for treatment of infants with apnea of prematurity

下载PDF

导出

摘要目的探讨经鼻间歇正压通气（NIPPV）治疗早产儿呼吸暂停（AOP）的临床疗效。方法选择2013年11月～2015年6月入住本院新生儿重症监护病房、符合入选标准的早产儿，根据随机数字表分为NIPPV组与经鼻持续气道正压通气（NCPAP）组，比较两组患儿临床疗效、上机前、上机后2h、上机后48h动脉血气、PaO2／FiO2（OI）、上机时间及并发症。结果共纳入符合标准的早产儿62例，其中NIPPV组33例，NCPAP组29例。NIPPV组和NCPAP组上机前血气pH[（7．275±0．104）vs．（7．260±0．095）]、PaO2[（50．6±11．2）vs．（46．6±11．2）mmHg]、PaCO2[（49．6±12．8）vs．（54．5±11．3）mmHg]、OI值[（213±62）vs．（188±65）]差异无统计学意义；两组上机后2h血气pH[（7．402±0．034）vs．（7．323±0．089）]、Pa02[（81．3±14．6）vs．（62．5±8．0）mmHg]、PaCO2[（38．1±5．6）vs．（44．0±9．6）mmHg]、OI值[（333±86）vs．（262±57）]及48h血气pH[（7．419±0．029）vs．（7．363±0．052）]、PaO2[（79．94±0．4）vs．（68．7±15．4）mmHg]、PaCO2[（37．1±6．1）vs．（40．2±5．6）mmHg]、OI值[（370±59）vs．（316±76）]差异均有统计学意义。NIPPV组治疗总有效率（69．7％）明显高于NCPAP组（34．5％），无创呼吸支持时间[（3．6±3．3）d]、用氧时间[（1．5±1．6）d]均短于NCPAP组[（7．8±9．4）d，（6．4±10．0）d]，两组差异均有统计学意义；两组使用氨茶碱比例（57．6％vs．55．2％）、有创呼吸支持比例（9．1％vs．3．4％）、住院时间[（34．8±20．1）d vs．（30．5±16．9）d]、支气管肺发育不良发生率（9．1％vs．17．2％）差异均无统计学意义。结论NIPPV较NCPAP治疗AOP有更好的临床疗效，可减少呼吸支持及用氧，并且不增加不良反应。 Objective To evaluate the efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation （NIPPV） in treating infants with apnea of prematurity （AOP）. Methods Preterm infants admitted to our neonatal intensive care unit between November 2013 and June 2015 and met the inclusion criteria were included. The subjects were randomly divided into NIPPV group and nasal continuous positive airway pressure （NCPAP） group. Arterial blood gas and PaO2/FiO2 （OI） before ventilation and 2 and 48 hours after noninvasive ventilation, the ventilation time, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 62 of infants, 33 in the NIPPV group and 29 in the NCPAP group, were included. Before ventilation, there was no statistically significant difference in pH[ （ 7. 275 ± 0. 104 ） vs. （ 7. 260 ±0.095）], PAO2[（50.6±11.2） vs. （46.6±11.2） mmHg], PACO2[（49.6±12.8） vs. （54.5 ±11.3） mmHg], and OI [ （213±62） vs. （188 ±65） ] between the two groups. However, the difference was statistically significant between the two groups inpH [（7.402±0.034） vs. （7. 323±0.089）], PaO2[（81.3±14.6） vs. （62.5±8.0） mmHg], PaCO2 [ （38. 1 ±5.6） vs. （44.0 ±9. 6） mmHg], and OI[ （333 ± 86） vs. （262 ± 57）] 2 hours after noninvasive ventilation. The difference was statistically significant between the two groups in pH [ （7. 419 ±0. 029） vs. （7. 363 ±0. 052） ], PaO2 [（79.9±10.4） vs. （68.7 ±15.4） mmHg], PaCOz[（37.1 ±6.1） vs. （40.2 ±5.6） mmHg], and OI [（370±59） vs. （316 ± 76）] 48 hours after noninvasive ventilation. The total effective rate in the NIPPV group （69.7%） was significantly higher than that in the NCPAP group （34. 5% ）. The noninvasive respiratory support time [ （3.6 ± 3.3 ）d ] and oxygen supply time [ （1.5± 1.6）d ] in the NIPPV group were shorter than those in the NCPAP group [ （7. 8 ± 9. 4）d and （6. 4 ±10. 0 ） d, respectively ] ; the difference was statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of aminophylline use （57.6% vs. 55.2% ） , the proportion of the invasive respiratory support （9. 1% vs. 3.4%）, the length of hospital stay [（34.8 ±20.1）d vs. （30.5 ±16.9）d], and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia （9. 1% vs. 17. 2% ） between the two groups. Conclusion NIPPV was more efficacious than NCPAP in treating AOP, as evidenced by reduced respiratory support and oxygen without increasing side effects.

作者蔡琳李晓东刘丽芳张升荣

机构地区深圳市南山区人民医院(广东医学院附属南山医院)新生儿科

出处《中国生育健康杂志》 2016年第6期529-533,共5页 Chinese Journal of Reproductive Health

关键词经鼻间歇正压通气持续气道正压通气呼吸暂停早产儿 Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation Continuous positive airway pressure Apnea Pretermaturity

分类号 R766.43 [医药卫生—耳鼻咽喉科]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献3

1杜立中.早产儿呼吸暂停的药物治疗[J].中国实用儿科杂志,2015,30(2):88-92. 被引量：56
2杨庆南,朱建幸,谢利娟,何振娟,陈妍,夏红萍,张永红.不同PEEP水平的鼻塞持续正压通气对早产儿反复呼吸暂停的疗效观察[J].上海交通大学学报（医学版）,2010,30(7):871-873. 被引量：9
3史源,唐仕芳,赵锦宁,胡章雪,李廷玉.间歇与持续经鼻正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床疗效比较[J].第三军医大学学报,2010,32(18):1991-1994. 被引量：26

二级参考文献43

1袁显文,高海波.不同方法治疗早产儿原发性呼吸暂停疗效观察[J].实用诊断与治疗杂志,2007,21(5):346-347. 被引量：14
2te Pas AB,Spaans VM,Rijken M,et al.Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure and low threshold for intubation in very preterm infants[J].Acta Paediatr,2008,97(8):1049-1054.
3Bohlin K,Jonsson B,Gustafsson AS,et al.Continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant[J].Neonatology,2008,93(4):309 -315.
4Tooley J,Dyke M.Randomized study of nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the preterm infant with respiratory distress syndrome[J].Acta Paediatr,2003,92 (10):1170-1174.
5Davis P G, Morley C J, Owen L S. Non-invasive respiratory support of preterm neonates with respiratory distress: continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation [ J ]. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 2009, 14( 1 ) : 14 -20.
6Stark A R, Cloherty J P. Manual of neonatal care. ed 4 [ M]. Philadelphia-New York: Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 330.
7Mathews T J, MacDorman M F. Infant mortality statistics from 2005 period linked birth/infant death data set [J]. Natl Vital Stat Rep, 2008, 57(2): 1-32.
8Hansen A K, Wisborg K, U|dbjerg N, et al. Elective caesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate[ J ]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2007, 86 (4) : 389 - 394.
9Bancalari E, Claure N. Non-invasive ventilation of the preterm infant [J]. Early HumDev, 2008,84(12): 815 -819.
10Morley C J, Davis P G, Doyle L W, et al. COIN Trial Investigators. Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very pretenn infants[ J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 358(7) : 700 -708.