论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察机械通气与乌司他丁治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合症的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析60例急性呼吸窘迫综合症患者的资料,治疗组(30例)采取机械通气与乌司他丁治疗,对照组(30例)采取机械通气治疗,观察两组的的呼吸频率、PaO2、PaO2/FiO2、PCO2、APACHEII评分、胸片变化、VAP发生率及病死率。结果:治疗组的呼吸频率、PaO2、PaO2/FiO2、PCO2指标均优于对照组(t=6.39,6.27,24.07,9.82,P<0.05);治疗组的VAP发生率20.0%明显小于对照组的36.7%(X2=5.84,P=0.016<0.05);治疗组的病死率3.3%明显小于对照组的16.7%(X2=5.71,P=0.017<0.05)。两组之间的APACHEII评分及胸片变化均有明显差异(t=7.14,6.33,P<0.05)。结论:机械通气与乌司他丁治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合症的临床疗效较好,能够较好地改善肺功能,缓解ARDS患者症状,提高安全可靠性,控制死亡率。
Objective: To observe the clinical efficacy of mechanical ventilation and ulinastatin in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: The data of 60 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were retrospectively analyzed. The treatment group (30 cases) was treated with mechanical ventilation and ulinastatin, while the control group (30 cases) was treated with mechanical ventilation. The respiratory rate , PaO2, PaO2 / FiO2, PCO2, APACHEII score, chest radiograph, VAP incidence and mortality. Results: The respiratory rate, PaO2, PaO2 / FiO2 and PCO2 in the treatment group were better than those in the control group (t = 6.39,6.27,24.07,9.82, P <0.05). The incidence of VAP in the treatment group was significantly lower than that of the control group 36.7% (X2 = 5.84, P = 0.016 <0.05). The case fatality rate in the treatment group was 3.3% less than that in the control group (X2 = 5.71, P = 0.017 <0.05). APACHEII score between the two groups and chest radiographs were significantly different (t = 7.14,6.33, P <0.05). Conclusion: The clinical curative effect of mechanical ventilation and ulinastatin on acute respiratory distress syndrome is better, which can improve pulmonary function, relieve the symptoms of ARDS patients, improve the safety and reliability, and control the mortality rate.