论文部分内容阅读
目的比较机械通气和常规方法治疗呼吸内科疾病的疗效。方法选取2013年4月—2014年4月郸城县人民医院收治的60例呼吸内科疾病患者,将其分为对照组和试验组,各30例。对照组采用常规方法治疗,试验组采用机械通气治疗,比较两组治疗效果。结果治疗前两组p H值、Pa O2、Pa CO2比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后试验组p H值、Pa O2高于对照组,Pa CO2低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组治疗后第1秒用力呼气容积(PEV1)、呼气峰值流速(PEF)、用力肺活量(FVC)、第1秒用力呼气容积占用力肺活量比值(PEV1/FVC)高于对照组,第1秒用力呼气容积占预计值的百分比(PEV1%)低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论呼吸内科疾病发病率较高,临床上采用机械通气治疗效果理想。
Objective To compare the efficacy of mechanical ventilation and conventional methods in the treatment of respiratory diseases. Methods Sixty patients with respiratory diseases who were admitted to Dancheng People’s Hospital from April 2013 to April 2014 were selected and divided into control group and experimental group with 30 cases in each group. The control group was treated by conventional method, the experimental group was treated by mechanical ventilation, and the treatment effect was compared between the two groups. Results Before treatment, there was no significant difference in p H value, Pa O2 and Pa CO2 between the two groups (P> 0.05). After treatment, the values of p H and Pa O2 in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group, PaCO 2 was lower than that in the control group There was statistical significance (P <0.05). In the experimental group, forced expiratory volume (PEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume exponent force of vital capacity (PEV1 / FVC) The percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PEV1%) was lower than that in control group, with significant difference (P <0.05). Conclusion The incidence of respiratory diseases is high, and the clinical effect of mechanical ventilation is satisfactory.