摘要
目的分析HH与HME两种加温加湿设备运用于重型颅脑外伤气管切开非机械通气患者长期持续氧疗的效果。方法选择符合要求的200名患者随机分为HH组(95例)和HME组(105例),HH组使用HH持续加温湿化,HME组使用HME,比较两组的湿化效果、氧疗效果以及肺部感染率。结果 7d后,HH组湿化效果、肺部感染情况优于HME组(P<0.05),14d两组的湿化效果比较具有显著统计学意义(P<0.01);氧疗效果PaO2、SaO2、SpO2比较上HH组优于HME组(P<0.05)。结论对于重型颅脑损伤气管切开长期持续氧疗患者(≥7d),HH的临床效果优于HME。
【Objective】 To analyze the effects of long-term continued oxygen therapy after tracheotomy when using the HH and HME in the non-MV clients with severe brain trauma.【Methods】 Divide the clients who meet the experimental request into HH group（N=95） and HME group（N=105） randomly,HH group use HH for humidification and heating,and HME group use HME.Humidifying effects,effects of oxygen therapy,incidence of pulmonary infection were compared between these two groups.【Results】 On the 7th days,the humidifying effects and infection rate on HH group were better than HME group（P0.05）,while there were significantly differences between two groups in the humidifying effects on the 14th days（P0.01）.The effects on oxygen therapy about PaO2,SaO2,SpO2 is better in HH group than HME group（P0.05）.【Conclusion】 HH is better use for the clients after tracheotomy with severe brain trauma receiving long-term continued oxygen therapy（≥7d）.
出处
《中国医学工程》
2012年第1期11-13,共3页
China Medical Engineering
