机械加温加湿器与氧气雾化吸入湿化气道在人工气道中效果比较

目的 比较机械加温加湿器与氧气雾化吸入湿化气道在人工气道中的效果。 方法 选取2017年2月-2018年2月我院收治的建立人工气道时间超48 h的74例危重患者,将其随机分为对照组和研究组各37例,对照组采取氧气雾化吸入行气道深化,研究组采用机械加温加湿器的方式行气道湿化,比较2组患者的气道湿化效果。结果 气道湿化后,研究组痰液黏稠度低于对照组(Z=-6.849,P＜0.001);患者舒适率高于对照组(χ²=9.784,P=0.002),痰细菌培养结果阳性率低于对照组(χ²=6.618,P=0.010)。结论 针对建立人工气道患者,利用机械加温加湿器行气道湿化的效果明显优于氧气雾化吸入。

Comparison of mechanical humidifier and oxygen atomization inhalation humidification for artificial airways

Objective To compare the effect of mechanical humidifier and oxygen atomization inhalation humidification for artificial airways.Methods Totally 74 critical patients established the artificial airway for more than 48 hours in our hospital between February 2017 and February 2018 were selected, and randomly divided into a control group and a study group, each of 37. The control group was given the oxygen atomization inhalation, while the study group was moisturized the airway using the mechanical humidifier. The wetting effect was compared between two groups.Results The sputum viscosity and the positive rate of sputum bacteria culture after airway humidification of the study group were significantly lower than those of the control group (Z=-6.849, P＜0.001;χ²=6.618, P=0.010). Moreover, the comfort of the study group was significantly higher than the control group (χ²=9.784, P=0.002).Conclusion For patients with artificial airway, the mechanical humidifying device is superior to the oxygen atomizing inhalation in humidifying the airway.