小儿哮喘经氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗的效果对比

王辉

（陕西省紫阳县人民医院儿科，陕西 安康，725300）

浏览次数：108次 下载次数：347次

摘要：

目的 探讨在小儿哮喘治疗中，采用氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入的临床效果。方法 选取2012年3月至2015年3月我院收治的150例哮喘患儿，将患儿分为观察组与对照组，每组75例。对照组患儿采用空气压缩泵雾化吸入，观察组患儿采用氧驱动雾化吸入，比较两组患儿的临床效果。结果 观察组患儿的总有效率为96.0%，明显高于对照组患儿的 70.7%，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。治疗后，两组患儿血氧饱和度明显优于治疗前，且观察组患儿的血氧饱和度优于对照组，差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 在小儿哮喘治疗中，采用氧驱动雾化吸入后，能够缓解患儿的临床症状，改善缺氧状态，并提高血氧饱和度，值得临床推广应用。

关键词：小儿哮喘；氧驱动雾化吸入；空气压缩泵雾化吸入

中图分类号：R725.6文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2017)04-0093-02

Effect observation of oxygen driver atomization and compressor pump atomization

in the treatment of pediatric asthma
WANG Hui
(Department of Pediatric, People's Hospital of Ziyang County, Ankang 725300, China)

ABSTRACT: Objective To investigate the clinical of oxygen driver atomization and compressor pump atomization in the treatment of pediatric asthma. Methods One hundred and fifty cases of children with pediatric asthma from March 2013 to March 2015 admitted in our hospital were selected, and were divided into observation group and control group, with 75 cases in each group. The control group accepted compressor pump atomization, while the observation group received oxygen driver atomization. The clinical effects of two groups were compared. Results The total effective rate of the observation group was 96.0%, which was higher than 70.7% of the control group (P<0.05). After treatment, the oxygen saturations of two groups were better than those before treatment, and the oxygen saturation of the observation group was better than that of the control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Oxygen driver atomization in the treatment of pediatric asthma can relieve the clinical symptoms, improve the hypoxia and oxygen saturations. It worthy of clinical application and popularization.
KEYWORDS: pediatric asthma; oxygen driver atomization; compressor pump atomization

参考文献：
[1] 肖东霞,吴明法,林良勇.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床效果比较[J].中国医学创新,2015,12(31):17-19.
[2] 张俊丽.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘疗效观察[J].中国卫生标准管理,2016,7(4):115-117.
[3] 王慧琴,王天锁,李冰.对比分析氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床效果[J].中国社区医师,2016,32(15):41-42.
[4] 王文辉,李鹏.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的效果比较[J].兵团医学,2014,40(2):24-25.
[5] 刘烽,杜燕.用空气压缩泵雾化吸入疗法和氧驱动雾化吸入疗法治疗小儿哮喘的效果对比[J].当代医药论丛,2015,13(18):253-254.
[6] YANG F.Oxygen-driving and atomized mucosolvan inhalation com- bined with holistic nursing in the treatment of children severe bronchial pneumonia[J].Pak J Pharm Sci,2015,28(4):1477-1480.
[7] BIANCHI G,CIPOLLONE R.Experimental assessments on a pressure swirl oil atomizer for positive displacement vane compressors[J].Energy Procedia,2015(82):286-293.
[8] 岑惠玲.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的临床疗效[J].白求恩医学杂志,2014,12(2):124-126.
[9] 申昆玲,邓力,李云珠,等.糖皮质激素雾化吸入疗法在儿科应用的专家共识[J].临床儿科杂志,2014,32(6):504-511.
[10] 吕静平,赵雁丽.氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗小儿哮喘的比较[J].中国现代药物应用,2014,8(11):169-170.