目的：比较两种不同湿化方法对气管切开气道湿化效果的影响。方法将60例气管切开并无使.用机械通气的患者分为实验组和对照组，每组各30例，实验组采.用持续氧气雾化进行气道湿化，对照组采.用常规滴入方法进行气道湿化。比较两组患者刺激性咳嗽、痰痂形成、吸痰次数、湿化气道护理花费时间及肺部感染发生情况。结果两组患者刺激性咳嗽、痰痂形成、吸痰次数、湿化气道护理花费时间及肺部感染发生情况比较，差异具有统计学意义（均P＜0.05），实验组气道湿化效果优于对照组。结论持续氧气雾化湿化方法能提高气管切开患者气道湿化效果，降低肺部感染发生率，提高护理工作效率。%Objectives To study two airway humidification methods on airway humidification of tracheotomy patients. Methods Sixty patients with traeheotomy were evenly randomized into experiment group and control group:in the former,the method of continuous oxygen atomization was used and in the latter,that of intermittent intratracheal instillation was used.The effects were compared in terms of stimulating cough,sputum clot formation,frequency of suction phlegm,time spent on the airway humidification and incidence of pulmonary infection between the groups.Results The effects in the experiment group were significantly better than in the control group in terms of stimulating cough,sputum clot formation,frequency of suction phlegm,time spent on the airway humidification and incidence of pulmonary infection(all P<0.05).Conclusion Continuous oxygen atomization can improve the effects of airway humidification,reduce the incidence of pulmonary infection and improve the efficiency of nursing work.
展开▼
