%0 Journal Article
%T 氧气驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗儿童哮喘急性发作期的临床研究
Clinical Study on Oxygen Driven Nebulization Inhalation and Air Compression Pump Nebulization Inhalation in the Treatment of Acute Asthma in Children
%A 陈华英
%J Advances in Clinical Medicine
%P 732-738
%@ 2161-8720
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/acm.2024.14102720
%X 目的：比较氧气驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗儿童哮喘急性发作期的疗效。方法：选取42例哮喘急性发作期儿童作为研究对象，将其随机分为对照组和观察组，对照组采用空气压缩泵雾化吸入治疗，观察组采用氧气驱动雾化吸入治疗。一周后比较2组患儿的总有效率、合并低氧血症者治疗后的总有效率与不合并低氧血症者的总有效率的差异、各项临床症状及体征(呼吸困难、喘息、咳嗽、哮鸣音)消失的时间及治疗前后最大呼气流速(PEF)的变化。结果：治疗一周后，观察组的总有效率为95.2%，明显高于对照组的61.9%，差异显著(P < 0.05)；观察组中合并低氧血症者治疗后的总有效率高于不合并低氧血症者的总有效率，差异显著，P < 0.05；观察组中不合并低氧血症者的总有效率与对照组中不合并低氧血症者的总有效率比较，差异无显著性，P > 0.05；观察组各项临床症状及体征(呼吸困难、喘息、咳嗽、哮鸣音)消失的时间明显短于对照组(P < 0.05)；观察组治疗后的PEF为(230.19 ± 72.09) L/min，明显高于对照组的(180.62 ± 81.97) L/min，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论：采用两种不同的雾化吸入方法治疗儿童哮喘急性发作均取得良好的治疗效果，但氧气驱动雾化吸入方法效果更佳，患儿病情改善更显著，预后更好。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of oxygen driven nebulization inhalation and air compression pump nebulization inhalation in the treatment of acute asthma attacks in children. Method: 42 children with acute asthma attacks were selected as the research subjects and randomly divided into a control group and an observation group. The control group was treated with air compression pump nebulization inhalation, while the observation group was treated with oxygen driven nebulization inhalation. Compare the total effective rate of two groups of children one week later, the difference in total effective rate between patients with hypoxemia and those without hypoxemia after treatment, the time for various clinical symptoms and signs (dyspnea, wheezing, cough, wheezing) to disappear, and the changes in maximum expiratory flow rate (PEF) before and after treatment. Result: After one week of treatment, the total effective rate of the observation group was 95.2%, significantly higher than the control group’s 61.9%, with a significant difference (P < 0.05); The total effective rate of patients with hypoxemia in the observation group after treatment was significantly higher than that of patients without hypoxemia, with a difference of P < 0.05. There was no significant difference in the total effective rate of patients without hypoxemia between the observation group and the control group, with P > 0.05. The disappearance time of various clinical symptoms and signs (dyspnea, wheezing, cough, wheezing) in the observation group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P < 0.05); The PEF of the observation group after treatment was (230.19 ± 72.09) L/min, significantly higher than that of the control group (180.62 ±
%K 儿童哮喘，
%K 急性发作期，
%K 氧气驱动雾化吸入，
%K 空气压缩泵雾化吸入
Childhood Asthma
%K Acute Attack Period
%K Oxygen Driven Atomization
%K Air Compression Pump Atomization
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=98145