...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Thoracic Disease >Respiratory management of acute exacerbation of interstitial pneumonia using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: a single center cohort study
【24h】

Respiratory management of acute exacerbation of interstitial pneumonia using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: a single center cohort study

机译:高流量鼻导管吸氧疗法对间质性肺炎急性加重的呼吸管理:单中心队列研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: The role of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in respiratory management of acute exacerbation of interstitial pneumonia (AE-IP) is unknown. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with AE-IP who were admitted to our hospital from June 2009 – May 2015 and compared mortality, complications, sedatives and analgesia use, and oral intake between cohorts before (pre-HFNC: June 2009 – May 2012) and after (post-HFNC: June 2012 – May 2015) the introduction of HFNC. In the pre-HFNC cohort, standard oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were used for respiratory management of AE-IP. In the post-HFNC cohort, HFNC was also used as an alternative to NIV in patients (I) who had refused NIV; (II) unable to cooperate, (III) intolerant to NIV, or (IV) who improved in respiratory parameters after NIV treatment for weaning. Results: Fifty-three pre-HFNC patients and 43 post-HFNC patients were enrolled. Neither the baseline characteristics at admission nor the major pharmacotherapy for AE-IP differed between the two cohorts. Twenty-eight (52.8%) patients and 19 (44.2%) patients required any respiratory support, in pre- and post-HFNC cohort, respectively (P=0.40). After introduction of HFNC, it was used in 40% of the patients who required respiratory support and NIV use was significantly reduced from 49.1% to 16.3% (P0.001). The post-HFNC cohort had significantly lower in-hospital mortality than the pre-HFNC cohort (27.9% vs. 49.1%, P=0.04). The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the two cohorts. The use of sedoanalgesia during respiratory support and the number of patients who discontinued oral intake for 24 hours were decreased after the introduction of HFNC (78.6% vs. 31.6%, P0.001; 52.8% vs. 23.3%, P=0.003). Conclusions: HFNC might be a feasible option in respiratory management of AE-IP.
机译:背景:高流量鼻插管氧疗(HFNC)在间质性肺炎急性发作(AE-IP)的呼吸管理中的作用尚不清楚。方法:我们回顾性分析了2009年6月至2015年5月入院的AE-IP患者的病死率,并发症,镇静剂和镇痛剂的使用情况以及两组之间的口服摄入量(HFNC之前:2009年6月至2012年5月)。之后(HFNC后:2012年6月– 2015年5月)引入HFNC。在HFNC之前的队列中,标准氧气疗法,无创通气(NIV)和有创机械通气(IMV)用于AE-IP的呼吸管理。在HFNC之后的队列中,对于拒绝NIV的患者(I),HFNC还被用作NIV的替代品; (II)无法合作,(III)对NIV不耐受,或(IV)在进行NIV断奶治疗后呼吸参数有所改善。结果:纳入了53例HFNC前患者和43例HFNC后患者。两组患者入院时的基线特征或主要药物疗法均无差异。在HFNC之前和之后,分别有28名患者(52.8%)和19名患者(44.2%)需要任何呼吸支持(P = 0.40)。引入HFNC后,需要呼吸支持的患者中有40%使用了HFNC,而使用NIV的比例从49.1%显着降低至16.3%(P <0.001)。 HFNC后人群的院内死亡率明显低于HFNC前人群(27.9%vs. 49.1%,P = 0.04)。两组的并发症发生率无显着差异。引入HFNC后,在呼吸支持过程中使用痛觉镇痛药和停止口服摄入超过24小时的患者数量有所减少(78.6%对31.6%,P <0.001; 52.8%对23.3%,P = 0.003) 。结论:HFNC可能是AE-IP呼吸管理的可行选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号