摘要
目的:对应用盐酸右美托咪定与咪达唑仑两种药物及相应护理模式对接受机械通气治疗的ICU患者实施镇静干预的临床效果进行对比研究。方法:选择南昌市中西医结合医院收治的接受机械通气治疗的ICU患者86例,随机分为对照组和观察组,平均每组43例。采用咪达唑仑及相应护理模式对对照组研究对象实施镇静干预;采用盐酸右美托咪定及相应护理模式对观察组研究对象实施镇静干预。对比两组研究对象机械通气治疗的镇静效果、镇静干预后完全苏醒时间和住院治疗总时间、对ICU通气治疗镇静护理服务的满意度、在机械通气治疗期间出现的不良反应例数。结果:观察组研究对象机械通气治疗的镇静效果明显优于对照组,组间差异显著(P<0.05);镇静干预后完全苏醒时间和住院治疗总时间明显短于对照组,组间差异显著(P<0.05);对ICU通气治疗镇静护理服务的满意度明显高于对照组,组间差异显著(P<0.05);在机械通气治疗期间出现的不良反应例数明显少于对照组,组间差异显著(P<0.05)。结论:应用盐酸右美托咪定及相应护理模式对接受机械通气治疗的ICU患者实施镇静干预的临床效果非常明显。
Objective： Comparative study of clinical effects of sedation with midazolam intervention to two drugs and the corresponding nursing mode to receive mechanical ventilation in the treatment of application of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in ICU patients. Methods： 86 patients with ICU in our hospital were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group, with 43 cases in each group. The application ofmidazolam and the corresponding nursing care was performed in the control group; using dexmedetomidine hydrochloride and corresponding nursing intervention was performed in observation group. After the intervention, full recovery time, hospitalization time, the total cases of adverse reaction of ICU ventilation in the treatment of nursing service satisfaction, sedation occurs during mechanical ventilation were compared. Results： The sedative effect in observation group of mechanical ventilation was significantly better than the control group （P〈0.05）; full recovery time and hospitalization time after the intervention was shorter than the control group （P〈0.05）; the ICU ventilation therapy sedation nursing service satisfaction was significantly higher than the control group （P〈0.05）; the number of cases of adverse reactions occurred during the treatment of mechanical ventilation significantly less than the control group, （P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The application of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride and corresponding nursing with mechanical ventilation is very effective.
出处
《药品评价》
CAS
2016年第17期59-61,共3页
Drug Evaluation
