摘要
目的:观察比较氧气驱动与空气压缩泵两种方法雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液及复方异丙托溴铵溶液治疗儿童喘息性支气管炎的疗效。方法:选择喘息性支气管炎患儿75例,将其随机分成3组,每组25例,三组均采用常规治疗方法,对照组未予雾化吸入,治疗A组采用空气压缩泵雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液及复方异丙托溴铵溶液,治疗B组采用氧气驱动雾化吸入相同药物。观察三组疗效、症状、体征变化情况。结果:治疗A、B两组总有效率分别为88.0%、96.0%均高于对照组(P<0.05)。气喘缓解时间治疗A、B两组均较对照组短(P<0.05),而治疗B组又相对短于治疗A组(P<0.05)。第一次雾化吸入后血氧饱和度(SaO2)与吸入前相比,治疗A组无明显变化(P>0.05),但治疗B组有明显上升(P<0.01)。结论:氧气驱动与空气压缩泵雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液及复方异丙托溴铵溶液均是治疗儿童喘息性支气管炎的有效方法,但氧气驱动雾化吸入治疗效果优于空气压缩泵雾化吸入。
Objective： To compare the efficacy of inhalation of Budesonide Suspension for Inhalation （Pulmicort Respules ） and Compound Ipratropium Bromide Solution （ Combivent ） with oxygen-driven and air compressor pump nebulization in pediatric asthmatic bronchitis. Methods： Together 75 cases with asthmatic bronchitis were recruited into three groups in which routine health care was provided. No nebulization treatment was applied in the control group, while Pulmicort Respules and Combivent were inhaled by air compressor pump nebulization and oxygen-driven nebulization in Group A and Group B, respectively. The change of efficacy, symptoms and signs were observed in the three groups. Results： Total effective rates of both Group A and Group B were higher than that of the control group （P〈0.05）. Wheezing relief time on auscultation was shorter in Group A and Group B than that in the control group （P〈0.05） and the same parameters were shorter in Group B than that in Group A （P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference of SaO2 between before and after the first nebulization in Group A （ P〉0.05 ）, while the SaO2 after the first nebulization was significantly higher than that before the nebulization in Group B （P〈0.01）. Conclusions： Nebulization of Pulmicort Respules and Combivent with both oxygen-driven and air compressor pump are effective for pediatric asthmatic bronchitis and oxygen-driven nebulization has better efficacy.
出处
《儿科药学杂志》
CAS
2012年第4期15-18,共4页
Journal of Pediatric Pharmacy
