Objective To compare the difference of therapeutic effects between oxygen driving atomization inhalation and air compression pump atomization inhalation on asthmatic suffocating pneumonia in children.Methods The clinical data about 130 children patients with asthmatic suffocating pneumonia were retrospectively analyzed. According to different treatment modes,these patients were divided into observation group ( drugs +oxygen driving atomization inhalation) and con-trol group ( drugs+air compression pump atomization inhalation) ,with 65 patients in each group.The therapeutic effects and the levels of forced vital capacity ( FVC) , forced expiratory volume in 1 second ( FEV1 ) , arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), partial pressure of carbon dioxide in artery (PaCO2) before treatment and on 1d,3d after treatment were detected and compared between two groups.Moreover the improvement status of hypoxia and wheezing of patients was observed in both groups.Results The total effective rate in observation group was 92.31%(60/65),which was significantly higher than that [72.31%(47/65)] in control group (χ2 =8.9273, P <0.01).After treatment there were significant differences in the sign indexes including hypoxia and wheezing between two group ( P <0.05).Conclusion Both oxygen driving atomization inhalation and air compression pump atomization inhalation have better therapeutic effects on asthmatic suffocating pneumonia in children,however, oxygen driving atomization inhalation is superior to air compression pump atomization inhalation,thus, which is worth using widely in clinical practice.%目的：探讨氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化治疗应用于小儿喘憋性肺炎的差异性。方法回顾性分析治疗的130例哮喘患儿的临床资料，根据治疗方式分为药物联合氧驱动雾化吸入组（观察组）65例和药物联合空气压缩泵雾化组（对照组）65例。观察治疗后临床效果，患儿治疗前、治疗后1 d和3 d用力肺活量 FVC、第1秒用力呼气容积（FEV1）、动脉血氧分压（PaO2）及动脉血二氧化碳分压（PaCO2），记录患儿缺氧、喘憋等症状的改善情况。结果观察组治疗总有效率（92 y．31％）明显高于对照组（72．31％），差异有统计学意义（χ2＝8．9273， P ＝0．0028）；2组缺氧、喘憋体征指标治疗后差异均有统计学意义（ P ＜0．05）。结论小儿哮喘性肺炎运用氧驱动雾化吸入与空气压缩泵雾化吸入方法进行治疗，均能取得较好的临床治疗效果，但氧驱动雾化吸入方法临床效果较显著，值得推广与应用。
展开▼
