Objective To compare clinical effects of different ventilation modes on respiratory support for premature infants after extubation by pulmonary surfactant (PS). Methods A total of 80 premature infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) treated in the Maternal & Child Health Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region were enrolled from March 2017 to March 2019,and were divided into observation group(n=40) and control group(n=40) randomly.Both groups were given tracheal intubation,PS and pulling out tracheal intubation.The observation group was given synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) for respiratory support,while control group received nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for support.The blood gas indexes,clinical indexes,invasive respiratory support rate and complications during treatment were compared between the two groups. Results At 1 h,12 h and 24 h after ventilation,partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and oxygenation index (OI) in observation group were significantly lower than those in control group(P<0.05).And at 1 h and 12 h after ventilation,oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) in observation group was significantly higher than that in control group (P<0.05).Moreover,the invasive respiratory support rate and the incidence of complications in observation group were significantly lower than those in control group during treatment (20.00% vs.52.50%;22.50% vs.47.50%) (χ2=9.141,5.495,P＜0.05).The invasive ventilation time,oxygen therapy time and hospitalization time in observation group were all shorter than those in control group (t=5.821,41.681,3.924,P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with NCPAP,SNIPPV can more effectively improve oxygenation of NRDS children,reduce CO2 retention,shorten ventilation support time,milking time,hospitalization time,and reduce incidence of complications.
Key words
premature infant /
respiratory support /
synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation /
nasal continuous positive airway pressure
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 钱文亚.外源性肺表面活性物质治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征研究进展[J].临床儿科杂志,2018,36(6):476-479.
[2] 李茂军,吴青,石伟,等.不同胎龄新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征临床特征分析[J].中国当代儿科杂志,2016,18(10):960-964.
[3] Mukerji A,Singh B,Helou S,et al.Use of noninvasive high-frequency ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit:a retrospective review[J].Am J Perinatol,2015,30(2):171-176.
[4] 李永富,杨晓路,马月兰,等.二种无创通气模式在早产儿呼吸衰竭中的应用[J].中国小儿急救医学,2016,23(4):236-239.
[5] 党嘉文,董文斌,雷小平,等.珂立苏联合鼻塞持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸衰竭的临床研究[J].中国临床药理学杂志,2018,34(9):1025-1028.
[6] 邵肖梅,叶鸿瑁,丘小汕.实用新生儿学[M].4版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2011:395-398.
[7] 荣箫,周伟,赵小朋,等.微创肺表面活性物质治疗在新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征中的疗效与安全性[J].中华实用儿科临床杂志,2018,33(14):1071-1074.
[8] Ciuffini F,Colnaghi M,Lavizzari A,et al.Therapy with high-flow nasal prongs in preterm infants[J].Pediatr Med Chir,2013,35(3):118-124.
[9] Yoder BA,Stoddard RA,Li M,et al.Heated,humidified hi gh-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates[J].Pediatricas,2013,131(5):e1482-e1490.
[10] Afjeh SA,Sabzehei MK,Shariati MK,et al.Evaluation of initial respiratory support strategies in VLBW neonates with RDS[J].Arch Ira Med,2017,20(3):158-164.
[11] Owens S,Erturk MA,Ouanes JPP,et al.Evaluation of epidural and peripheral nerve catheter heating during magnetic resonance imaging[J].Reg Anesth Pain Med,2014,39(6):534-539.
[12] Tahereh E,Fatemeh N,Roya T,et al.Comparison of complications and efficacy of NIPPV and nasal CPAP in preterm infants with RDS[J].Iran J Pediatr,2016,26(2):e2352.
[13] 李永富,杨晓路,马月兰,等.二种无创通气模式在早产儿呼吸衰竭中的应用[J].中国小儿急救医学,2016,23(4):236-239.
[14] Greenough A,Sharma A.What is new in ventilation strategies for the neonate?[J].Eur J Pediatr,2007,166(10):991-996.
[15] 岳冬梅,佟雅洁.不同通气方式联合肺表面活性物质治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的疗效比较[J].中国小儿急救医学,2018,25(4):297-300.
[16] Lemyre B,Laughon M,Bose C,et al.Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants[J].Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,2016,12(2):CD005384.
PDF(597 KB)
