论文部分内容阅读
目的：比较经鼻盲探和经口气管插管的方法及优缺点。方法：急性呼吸衰竭（ Ａ Ｒ Ｆ） 患者分两组：经鼻组７２ 例，经口组５４ 例。采用带有内螺纹钢丝的低压气囊一次性气管插管。结果：经鼻组气管插管时间明显短于经口组（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０１） 。两组插管前动脉血氧饱和度（ Ｓａ Ｏ２） 、血压（ Ｂ Ｐ） 、心率（ Ｈ Ｒ） 差异无显著性（ Ｐ＞ ０ ．０５） 。经口组气管插管时 Ｓａ Ｏ２ 明显下降（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０１） ， Ｂ Ｐ、 Ｈ Ｒ 明显上升（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０１） ，且有７４ ．１ ％ 的患者出现各种心律失常；而经鼻组 Ｓａ Ｏ２ 、 Ｂ Ｐ、 Ｈ Ｒ 变化不大（ Ｐ＞ ０ ．０５） ，心律失常为４ ．２ ％ 。结论：经鼻气管插管时间缩短，无严重缺氧、血压增高及严重心律失常等并发症；是建立人工气道较好、较新的方法。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the methods and advantages and disadvantages of nasal blindness and orotracheal intubation. Methods: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients were divided into two groups: 72 in the nasal group and 54 in the oral group. Low-pressure balloon with internal thread steel disposable tracheal intubation. Results: The time of tracheal intubation in nasal group was significantly shorter than that in oral group (P <0.01). There was no significant difference in arterial oxygen saturation (Sa O2), blood pressure (B P) and heart rate (HR) between the two groups before intubation (P> 0.05). Sa O2 decreased significantly (P <0.01), and B P, H R increased significantly (P <0.01) in the oral tracheal intubation group. 1% of patients had various kinds of arrhythmias; while nasal group Sa O2, B P, H R little changed (P> 0.05), arrhythmia 4. 2%. Conclusion: The time of nasotracheal intubation is shortened, no serious hypoxia, high blood pressure and serious arrhythmia and other complications; artificial airway is better, newer method.