气泡式与鼻塞式持续气道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的疗效比较

目的 比较气泡式持续气道正压通气（BNCPAP）与鼻塞式持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征（NRDS）呼吸支持中的疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析使用过BNCPAP（69例）或nCPAP（61例）呼吸支持的130例早产NRDS患儿的临床资料，比较两组的死亡率、呼吸支持时间、是否使用肺表面活性物质（PS）以及治疗失败、支气管肺发育不良（BPD）、早产儿视网膜病（ROP）的发生情况，和上机后血气分析的pH、氧分压、二氧化碳分压的变化情况，并评价其安全性。结果 BNCPAP、nCPAP两组患儿在性别分布、出生胎龄及体重、1 min及5 min Apgar评分及出生方式、NRDS严重程度等方面的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。BNCPAP组无患儿死亡，nCPAP组有1例死亡，但两组病死率的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。BNCPAP组及nCPAP组无创辅助通气的时长、治疗失败率、BPD和ROP的发生率以及需要使用或需要重复使用PS比例的差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。两组患儿上机后8~12 h的pH值变化及氧合指数变化的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05），但BNCPAP组患儿的二氧化碳分压下降较nCPAP组患儿多（P < 0.05）。两组患儿气胸及鼻中隔、鼻黏膜损伤发生率的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 BNCPAP和nCPAP在早产儿NRDS呼吸支持中的疗效和安全性相近。

Clinical effect of bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure in respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Objective To study the clinical effect and safety of bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BNCPAP) versus conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 130 preterm infants with NRDS. Among them, 69 underwent BNCPAP and 61 underwent nCPAP. The two groups were compared in terms of mortality rate, duration of respiratory support, use of pulmonary surfactant (PS), and treatment failure rate, and the incidence rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), as well as the changes in blood gas pH, partial pressure of oxygen, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The safety was evaluated for both groups. Results There were no significant differences between the BNCPAP group and the nCPAP group in sex distribution, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes after birth, delivery mode, and the severity of NRDS (P > 0.05). No infants in the BNCPAP group died, and one infant in the nCPAP group died; there was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of noninvasive ventilation, treatment failure rate, the incidence rates of BPD and ROP, and the percentage of infants with a need for use or reuse of PS (P > 0.05). After 8-12 hours of ventilation, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the changes in blood gas pH and oxygenation index (P > 0.05), while the BNCPAP group had a significantly greater reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide than the nCPAP group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rates of pneumothorax, nasal septal injury, and nasal mucosal injury (P > 0.05). Conclusions BNCPAP and nCPAP have similar clinical effect and safety in respiratory support for preterm infants with NRDS.