摘要
目的探讨气管切开患者应用不同气道湿化方法的效果。方法选择气管切开不需要机械通气治疗的患者115例,按入院先后顺序分为3组,A组(微量泵组)、B组(人工鼻组)、C组(一次性MR850湿化系统双加热式呼吸机湿化管道组)。分别测量各组患者3d内气管切开处吸入气体的温度和相对湿度,计算出绝对湿度;评估各组患者气道痰液黏稠度的变化;肺部感染控制的时间;记录各组3d内平均日护理工时及湿化所需的日医疗费用。结果在气道温湿度、分泌物性状控制、肺部感染控制时间、护理工时方面,C组较另两组有显著优势,B组较A组有优势;B组较另两组医疗费用高。结论 MR850湿化系统更适用于肺部感染的气管切开患者,是理想的气道湿化方法。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the modified airway humidification in patients with traeheotomy. Methods Tolally 115 patients with tracheotomy were randomly divided into three groups：group A（micro pump group）,group B（artifieial nose greup） and gronp C （MR850 humidifying device greup）. The temperature and relative humidity of the inhaled gases,changes of airway secretions,duration of pulmonary infection control,nursing hours and medical expense within three days were recorded and compared between the three groups, Results Group C was superior in the airway temperature and humidity,airway secretion,duration of puhnonary infection and nursing hours compared to group B and group A. The medical expense was lowest in group B. Conclusion MR850 humidifying device is more suitable ior the pulmonary infected patienls with Iracheotomy. It is an ideal airway humidification method.
出处
《中华护理杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第1期16-18,共3页
Chinese Journal of Nursing
关键词
气管切开术
气道湿化
Traeheotomy
Airway humidification
