论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨无创正压通气（non-invasive positive pressure ventilation，NIPPV）治疗病毒性肺炎所致急性呼吸窘迫综合征（acute respiratory distress syndrome，ARDS）的疗效。方法:自2017年12月至2019年6月在连续收住新疆医科大学第一附属医院呼吸加强医疗病房（RICU）的患者中，按照纳入标准和排除标准筛选患者作为研究对象。研究对象给予NIPPV作为初始呼吸支持治疗方式，根据是否需要气管插管（endotracheal intubation，ETI），分为NIPPV失败组和NIPPV成功组。采取单因素分析和多因素Logistic回归分析寻找NIPPV失败的危险因素，并绘制受试者工作特征曲线（ROC），评价危险因素对NIPPV失败的预测价值。结果:有43例患者纳入研究，其中NIPPV失败组16例（37.2%），成功组27例（62.8%）。院内感染发生率[44%（7/16）n vs 0（0/27）,χn 2=11.082, n P<0.05]及病死率[50%（8/16）n vs 7%（2/27）,χn 2 =7.965, n P<0.05]在NIPPV失败组显著升高。单因素分析显示，失败组入院时急性生理和慢性健康评估评分（APACHEⅡ）较高（19.13±1.93n vs 17.44±1.55，n t=-3.134, n P<0.05），合并感染比例[56%（9/16）n vs 15%（4/27），χn 2=6.33，n P<0.05]以及早期使用NIPPV不足的患者占比[69%（11/16）n vs 26%（7/27）,χn 2=7.57, n P<0.05]均较高，多因素Logistic回归分析显示，入院时APACHE Ⅱ评分[n OR=1.941，95%n CI：1.159~3.249，n P=0.012]，合并感染[n OR=8.602，95%n CI：1.267~58.416，n P=0.028]；早期使用NIPPV不足（n OR=10.06，95%n CI：1.592~63.527，n P=0.014）是NIPPV失败的独立危险因素。受试者工作特征曲线（ROC）分析显示，入院时APACHE Ⅱ评分对NIPPV失败具有较高的预测价值，曲线下面积（AUC）为0.748，敏感度为62.5%，特异度为74.1%；早期使用NIPPV不足的AUC为0.714，敏感度为68.8%，特异度为74.1%；合并感染的AUC为0.707，敏感度为56.3%，特异度为85.2%。n 结论:病毒性肺炎所致的ARDS早期持续使用NIPPV治疗，可减少ETI，降低病死率，但是重症ARDS或合并感染患者不宜选择NIPPV。“,”Objective:To explore the efficacy and case selection of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by viral pneumonia.Methods:These patients who were continuously admitted in the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from December 2017 to June 2019 and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. All subjects accepted NIPPV as the initial intervention and they were divided into the NIPPV failure group and NIPPV success group according to the requirement of endotracheal intubation (ETI). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify the risk factors for NIPPV failure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was plotted to evaluate the predictive value of risk factors for NIPPV failure in these patients.Results:Forty-three patients were studied in this experiment. The success rate of NIPPV was 62.8% (27/43), and the failure rate was 37.2% (16/43). Compared with the NIPPV success group, the incidence of nosocomial infection [44% (7/16) n vs 0 (0/27), χ n 2 =11.082, n P<0.05] and mortality rate [50% (8/16) n vs 7% (2/27), χ n 2 =7.965, n P<0.05] were significantly increased in the NIPPV failure group. The univariate analysis indicated that the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHEⅡ) score, the ratio of early concurrent bacterial or fungal infections, and the proportion of patients with insufficient NIPPV at the early 72 h were significantly higher in the NIPPV failure group (all n P<0.05). Meanwhile, multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that the baseline APACHEⅡ score (n OR=1.941, 95%n CI:1.159-3.249, n P=0.012), the rate of early concurrent bacterial or fungal infections (n OR=8.602, 95%n CI:1.267-58.416, n P=0.028), and insufficient use of NIPPV at the early 72 h (n OR=10.06, 95%n CI:1.592-63.527, n P=0.014) were independent risk factors associated with NIPPV failure. The ROC curve showed the area under curve (AUC), the sensitivity, and the specificity was 0.748, 62.5%, and 74.1% respectively, which demonstrates that that APACHE Ⅱ score at admission was the most predictive factor of NIPPV failure. For the observed indicator without enough NIPPV treatment within 72 h, the AUC, the sensitivity, and the specificity was 0.714, 68.8%, and 74.1%, respectively. And for the observed indicator with concurrent bacterial or fungal infections, the AUC, the sensitivity and the specificity is 0.707, 56.3% and 85.2%, respectively.n Conclusions:Early use of enough NIPPV in patients with ARDS caused by viral pneumonia can significantly decrease ETI and mortality rates. However, NIPPV should not be conducted in patients suffered from severe ARDS or early concurrent bacterial or fungal infections.