论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨头罩无创通气（NIV）治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重（AECOPD）合并呼吸衰竭患者的效果及耐受性，对改善血气、缓解呼吸困难等方面的作用以及并发症的发生情况。方法:选择2018年1月1日至2019年5月31日郑州大学第一附属医院急诊重症监护病房（EICU）和呼吸重症监护病房（RICU）收治的AECOPD合并呼吸衰竭患者。在获得患者或其授权家属知情同意后，采用随机数字表法分为头罩组和面罩组，分别利用头罩或面罩按计划进行NIV。于NIV过程中（NIV即刻、1 h、4 h和结束时）监测患者耐受性评分、血气分析、心率（HR）、呼吸频率（RR），并观察气管插管、住院死亡及并发症等终点指标。绘制Kaplan-Meier生存曲线，分析两组患者30 d生存情况。结果:研究期间共收治AECOPD合并呼吸衰竭患者82例，排除氧合指数（PaOn 2/FiOn 2）>200 mmHg（1 mmHg＝0.133 kPa）、带气管插管转入或达到有创通气指征、合并急性心肌梗死、2周内发生严重创伤、分泌物过多及排痰障碍或拒绝参加本研究者，最终共26例纳入分析，被随机分配至头罩组和面罩组，每组13例。两组NIV各时间点PaOn 2/FiOn 2均较NIV即刻显著升高，两组间比较差异无统计学意义；但NIV结束时头罩组PaOn 2/FiOn 2较NIV即刻的增加值显著高于面罩组（mmHg：75.1±73.2比7.7±86.0，n P 200 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa), with tracheal intubation or invasive ventilation, suffering from acute myocardial infarction, severe trauma within 2 weeks, excessive secretion, sputum discharge disorder or refusal to participate in the study, 26 patients were finally enrolled in the analysis, randomly assigned to the helmet group and the facial mask group, with 13 patients in each group. The PaO n 2/FiOn 2 after NIV of patients in both groups was increased significantly as compared with that immediately after NIV, without significant difference between the two groups, but the increase in PaOn 2/FiOn 2 at the end of NIV compared with immediately after NIV in the helmet group was significantly higher than that in the facial mask group (mmHg: 75.1±73.2 vs. 7.7±86.0, n P < 0.05). RR at each time point after NIV in the two groups was lower than that immediately after NIV, especially in the helmet group. There were significant differences between the helmet group and facial mask group at 1 hour, 4 hours, and the end of NIV (times/min: 17.5±4.1 vs. 23.1±6.3 at 1 hour, 16.2±2.5 vs. 20.0±5.5 at 4 hours, 15.5±2.5 vs. 21.2±5.9 at the end of NIV, all n P < 0.05). The NIV tolerance score of the helmet group at 4 hours and the end was significantly higher than that of the facial mask group (4 hours: 3.9±0.3 vs. 3.3±0.9, at the end of NIV: 3.8±0.6 vs. 2.9±0.9, both n P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement of pH value, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO n 2), or HR between helmet group and facial mask group. The total number of complications (cases: 3 vs. 8) and the nasal skin lesions (cases: 0 vs. 4) in the helmet group were significantly less than those in the facial mask group (both n P 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate of 30 days in the helmet group was lower than that in the facial mask group, but the difference was not statistically significant (Log-Rank test: χ n 2 = 1.278, n P = 0.258).n Conclusion:NIV with helmet has better comfort for patients with AECOPD combined with respiratory failure, and better effect on improving oxygenation and relieving dyspnea, and its effect on carbon dioxide emissions is not inferior to that of traditional mask NIV.