不同雾化吸入方式对婴幼儿支气管肺炎的临床效果

魏国烨，王英

（陕西省靖边县人民医院，陕西 榆林，718500）

浏览次数：98次 下载次数：300次

摘要：

目的 探讨不同雾化吸入方式对婴幼儿支气管肺炎的临床效果。方法 选取我院收治的小儿支气管肺炎患儿84例，随机分为超声雾化组（42例）和氧驱雾化组（42 例），超声雾化组患儿接受超声雾化治疗，氧驱雾化组患儿接受氧气驱动雾化治疗。对比两组患儿的临床疗效、临床症状和体征改善时间。结果 氧驱雾化组患儿的咳嗽改善时间、声音嘶哑消失时间、肺部痰鸣音消失时间显著短于超声雾化组（P<0.05）。氧驱雾化组的治疗总有效率为85.71%，显著高于超声雾化组的 66.67% （P<0.05）。结论 氧驱雾化治疗婴幼儿支气管肺炎较超声雾化组效果更显著，可有效缩短患儿临床症状和体征改善时间，值得应用。

关键词：婴幼儿支气管肺炎；超声雾化；氧驱雾化

中图分类号：R725.6 文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2017)18-0098-02

Clinical effect of different atomization inhalation methods in the treatment of infants bronchopneumonia
WEI Guo-ye, WANG Ying
(Jingbian County People``s Hospital, Yulin 718500, China)

ABSTRACT：Objective To explore the clinical effect of different atomization inhalation methods in the treatment of infants bronchopneumonia. Methods A total of 84 patients with infants bronchial pneumonia admitted in our hospital were selected and randomly divided into ultrasonic atomization group (42 cases) and oxygen nebulizer group (42 cases). The ultrasonic atomization group was treated with ultrasonic atomization treatment, and the oxygen atomization group was treated with oxygen atomizing inhalation. The clinical efficacy, clinical symptoms and signs improvement time were compared between the two groups. Results The cough improvement time, hoarseness disappearance time and lung rale disappearance time of the oxygen nebulizer group were shorter than those of the ultrasonic atomization group (P<0.05). The total effective rate of the oxygen nebulizer group was 85.71% , which was higher than 66.67% of the ultrasonic atomization group (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with ultrasonic atomization treatment, the clinical effect of oxygen atomizing inhalation is more significant. It can reduce the clinical symptoms and signs improvement time, which can be widely applied in clinic.

KEYWORDS: infants bronchopneumonia; ultrasonic atomization; oxygen atomizing inhalation

参考文献:
[1] 白俊英.两种雾化吸入方式对婴幼儿支气管肺炎治疗效果的影响比较[J].基层医学论坛,2015,19(6):752-753.
[2] 谭国明.不同雾化吸入方式治疗不同年龄小儿支气管肺炎的疗效观察[J].中国民族民间医药,2011,20(5):85-86.
[3] 胡亚美,江载芳.诸福棠实用儿科学[M].7 版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2002:1443-1446.
[4] 赵永.超声雾化吸入治疗小儿呼吸道疾病的治疗体会[J].当代医学,2017,23(2):124-125.
[5] 施红.沐舒坦不同雾化方式治疗婴幼儿支气管肺炎化痰的疗效比较[J].中国药业,2012,21(3):78-79.
[6] 李莉,陈娟娟,徐兵,等.2 种雾化吸入治疗婴幼儿支气管肺炎疗效比较[J].中华全科医学,2010,8(5):662-663.
[7] 解秀玲.氧气驱动雾化吸入研究进展[J].护理研究,2007,21(29):2643-2645.
[8] 梁璐.氧气驱动雾化吸入治疗小儿呼吸疾病的临床研究[J].中外女性健康研究,2016,24(10):219,223.
[9] 王锦,季海娟.氧气驱动雾化吸入治疗小儿呼吸系统疾病的临床研究[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2015,32(2):204-205.
[10] 钟琼.氧气雾化吸入与超声雾化吸入治疗婴幼儿喘息样支气管炎的疗效对比观察[J].现代诊断与治疗,2016,26(8):1392-1394.
[11] 刘国群,魏兵,康钰.氧气雾化与超声雾化吸入氨溴索治疗毛细支气管炎效果分析[J].吉林医学,2013,34(4):641-642.
[12] 王兰.超声雾化与氧气雾化用于小儿肺炎的疗效观察[J].中国临床研究,2012,25(8):823.