高、低剂量布地奈德混悬液雾化吸入治疗小儿毛细支气管炎的对比研究

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2013.01.013

目的

探讨高、低剂量布地奈德(BUD)混悬液雾化吸入治疗小儿毛细支气管炎的临床疗效、住院时间及费用。

方法

选择2011年1月至12月在本院初诊为毛细支气管炎并住院治疗的157例患儿为研究对象。对其按照入院顺序分为低剂量组(n＝78)与高剂量组( n＝79)，分别采取雾化吸入BUD混悬液0.5 mg/次与1.0 mg/次治疗。对两组接受雾化吸入治疗患儿的临床疗效、住院时间及费用进行统计学处理(本研究遵循的程序符合本院人体试验委员会制定的伦理学标准，得到该委员会批准，分组征得受试对象监护人的知情同意，并与其签署临床研究知情同意书)。两组患儿的年龄、性别及小儿毛细支气管炎分型等比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结果

高剂量组患儿在接受BUD混悬液雾化治疗30 min与60 min时的Beck临床评分、呼吸频率均较低剂量组降低更显著，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)；而血氧饱和度则较低剂量组显著升高，差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)；高剂量组患儿的平均住院时间及平均住院费用显著低于低剂量组，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)；两组患儿均无明显不良反应发生。

结论

采用1.0 mg/次雾化吸入BUD混悬液治疗小儿毛细支气管炎较采用0.5 mg/次更能显著降低患儿在吸入治疗30 min，60 min时Beck临床评分及呼吸频率，改善患儿血氧饱和度，并缩短患儿的住院时间，降低住院费用。雾化吸入BUD治疗对患儿无明显不良反应。

关键词: 毛细支气管炎, 布地奈德混悬液, 剂量, 临床疗效, 儿童

Objective

To evaluate the clinical features of children with bronchiolitis, and compared their treatment response between different dosage of nebulised budesonide suspension for inhalation.

Methods

From January to December 2011, a total of 157 cases of children with bronchiolitis were recruited. Related clinical data of children diagnosed and administrated were collected and analyzed by soft ware SPSS 19.0. The patients were randomly divided into low dose group(n=78) and high dose group(n=79), they were nebulised budesonide suspension for inhalation 0.5 mg once and 1.0 mg once, respectively. Informed consent was obtained from the parents of each participating child. There had no significance difference between two groups among age, gender ratio and classified of bronchiolitis evaluated(P>0.05).

Results

At treatment 30 minutes, children with mild bronchiolitis, Beck score, respiratory frequency in high dose group were much lower than those in low dose group(P<0.001, P=0.01), pulse oxygen saturation in high dose group was statistically higher than that in low dose group(t=3.596, P<0.001). The same result could be seen in children with severe bronchiolitis. At treatment 60 minutes, children with mild bronchiolitis, Beck score, respiratory frequency in high dose group were much lower than those in low dose group(P=0.003, P=0.001), pulse oxygen saturation in high dose group was much higher than that in low dose group(t=4.593, P<0.001), The same result could be seen in children with severe bronchiolitis. There had no significance difference between high and low dose group in hospitalization time and expenses (P<0.05), and those in high dose group were much shorter and less cost.

Conclusions

Treatment by 1.0 mg budesonide suspension, response of children with bronchiolitis are much better than that of 0.5 mg group. Related clinical data include faster changing in Beck clinical score, respiratory frequency, pulse oxygen saturation; shorter hospitalization time and less cost of hospitalization expenses.

Key words: bronchiolitis, budesonide suspension, dosage, clinical effect, child

图1 小儿毛细支气管炎发病的好发季节比较

Figure 1 Comparison of seasonal occurrence rate of bronchiolitis

表1 两组患儿治疗前及接受0.5 mg与1.0 mg雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的Beck评分比较(分，±s)

Table 1 Comparison of Beck score between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (score，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	10.35±2.14	8.63±1.52^a	7.63±0.52^a
?	低剂量组	24	10.23±2.17	9.56±1.75^b	8.72±0.74^a
?	t	?	－0.198	2.040	7.042
?	P	?	0.844	0.047	<0.001
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	5.65±1.28	5.02±0.21^a	4.81±0.41^a
?	低剂量组	54	5.72±1.21	5.18±0.36^a	5.02±0.53^a
?	t	?	0.861	4.293	3.069
?	P	?	0.391	<0.001	0.003

表1 两组患儿治疗前及接受0.5 mg与1.0 mg雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的Beck评分比较(分，±s)

Table 1 Comparison of Beck score between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (score，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	10.35±2.14	8.63±1.52^a	7.63±0.52^a
?	低剂量组	24	10.23±2.17	9.56±1.75^b	8.72±0.74^a
?	t	?	－0.198	2.040	7.042
?	P	?	0.844	0.047	<0.001
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	5.65±1.28	5.02±0.21^a	4.81±0.41^a
?	低剂量组	54	5.72±1.21	5.18±0.36^a	5.02±0.53^a
?	t	?	0.861	4.293	3.069
?	P	?	0.391	<0.001	0.003

表2 两组患儿治疗前及接受雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的呼吸频率比较(次/min，±s)

Table 2 Comparison of respiratory rate between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (/min，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	56.42±4.97	49.43±3.95^a	45.32±6.87^a
?	低剂量组	24	55.71±5.23	52.15±4.32^a	49.50±7.12^a
?	t	?	－0.448	2.311	2.087
?	P	?	0.628	0.025	0.042
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	48.31±4.95	41.92±6.83^a	40.21±5.07^a
?	低剂量组	54	47.12±5.09	44.27±7.12^a	43.17±4.59^a
?	t	?	－1.160	－2.628	3.322
?	P	?	0.249	0.010	0.001

表2 两组患儿治疗前及接受雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的呼吸频率比较(次/min，±s)

Table 2 Comparison of respiratory rate between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (/min，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	56.42±4.97	49.43±3.95^a	45.32±6.87^a
?	低剂量组	24	55.71±5.23	52.15±4.32^a	49.50±7.12^a
?	t	?	－0.448	2.311	2.087
?	P	?	0.628	0.025	0.042
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	48.31±4.95	41.92±6.83^a	40.21±5.07^a
?	低剂量组	54	47.12±5.09	44.27±7.12^a	43.17±4.59^a
?	t	?	－1.160	－2.628	3.322
?	P	?	0.249	0.010	0.001

表3 两组患儿治疗前及接受雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的血氧饱和度比较(%，±s)

Table 3 Comparison of pulse oxygen saturation between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (%，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	90.87±2.95	95.79±2.41^a	97.63±2.28^a
?	低剂量组	24	91.26±3.12	93.36±2.73^a	95.52±3.46^a
?	t	?	0.454	－3.349	－2.562
?	P	?	0.652	0.002	0.014
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	93.81±3.23	97.41±2.15^a	98.42±1.49^a
?	低剂量组	54	93.52±3.18	95.41±3.52^a	96.53±2.73^a
?	t	?	－0.390	－3.596	－4.593
?	P	?	0.698	<0.001	<0.001

表3 两组患儿治疗前及接受雾化吸入治疗30 min，60 min时的血氧饱和度比较(%，±s)

Table 3 Comparison of pulse oxygen saturation between two groups at admission, and treatment 30 min, 60 min (%，±s)

组别		n	治疗前	30 min时	60 min时
重度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	90.87±2.95	95.79±2.41^a	97.63±2.28^a
?	低剂量组	24	91.26±3.12	93.36±2.73^a	95.52±3.46^a
?	t	?	0.454	－3.349	－2.562
?	P	?	0.652	0.002	0.014
轻度患儿		?	?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	93.81±3.23	97.41±2.15^a	98.42±1.49^a
?	低剂量组	54	93.52±3.18	95.41±3.52^a	96.53±2.73^a
?	t	?	－0.390	－3.596	－4.593
?	P	?	0.698	<0.001	<0.001

表4 两组患儿平均住院时间、住院费用比较 (±s)

Table 4 Comparison of hospitalization time and expenses between two groups(±s)

组别		n	住院时间(d)	住院费用(元)
重度患儿		?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	8.62±2.67	2573±196
?	低剂量组	24	10.73±3.27	2816±184
?	t	?	2.504	4.556
?	P	?	0.016	<0.001
轻度患儿		?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	6.17±1.64	2029±213
?	低剂量组	54	7.12±1.28	2215±162
?	t	?	3.721	5.504
?	P	?	<0.001	<0.001

表4 两组患儿平均住院时间、住院费用比较 (±s)

Table 4 Comparison of hospitalization time and expenses between two groups(±s)

组别		n	住院时间(d)	住院费用(元)
重度患儿		?	?	?
?	高剂量组	26	8.62±2.67	2573±196
?	低剂量组	24	10.73±3.27	2816±184
?	t	?	2.504	4.556
?	P	?	0.016	<0.001
轻度患儿		?	?	?
?	高剂量组	53	6.17±1.64	2029±213
?	低剂量组	54	7.12±1.28	2215±162
?	t	?	3.721	5.504
?	P	?	<0.001	<0.001

[1]	Leader S, Kohlhase K. Recent trends in severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)among US infants, 1997 to 2000[J]. J Pediatr, 2003，143:S127-S132.
[2]	Che d, Nicolau J, Bergonunioux J, et al.Bronchiolitis among infants under 1 year of age in France: Epidemiology and factors associated with mortality[J]. Arch Pediatr，2012，19(7):700-706.
[3]	Shay DK, Holman RC, Newman RD, et al. Bronchiolitis associated hospitalizations among US children, 1980-1996[J]. JAMA，1999，282:1440-1446.
[4]	Njoo H, Pelletier L, Spika J. Infectious disease//Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Lung Association, Health Canada, Statistics Canada, eds. Respiratory disease in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information[R]，2001，81-86.
[5]	Stang P, Brandenburg N, Carter B. The economic burden of respiratory syncytial virus-associated bronchiolitis hospitalizations[J]. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2001，155:95-96.
[6]	Bentur L, Shoseyov D. Dexamethasone inhalations in RSV bronchiolitis: A doubleblind, placebo-controlled study[J]. Acta Paediatr，2005，94:866-871.
[7]	Shen KL, Li YZ, Li CR, et al. The experts'consensus about glucocorticoid anapnotherapy in children[J]．J Clin Pediatr，2011，29(1):86-91.
[8]	Hu YM, Jiang ZF. Zhu Fu-tang practical peadiatrics.7th ed[M]Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House，2002，1199-1201.
[9]	Beck R, Elias N. Computerized acoustic assessment of treatment efficiency of nebulized epinephrine and albuterol in RSV bronchiolitis[J]. J BMC Pediatr, 2007，7(1):22-27.
[10]	Xue XD, Li YB. Pediatrics[M]. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House，2005，219-221.
[11]	Martin MA.Respiratory syncytial virus infection and asthma[J]．A1lergol Immunopathol，2001，29(3):140.
[12]	Dimova-Yaneva D, Russell D, Main M, et al.Eosinophil activation and cysteinyl leukotriene production in infants with respiratory syncial virus bronchiolitis[J]．Clin Exp Allergy，2004，34(41:555.
[13]	Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)．GINA workshop report，global strategy of asthma management and prevention[R/OL]．National Heart Lung and Blood Institute，World Health Organization[20062007-07-18]． URL
[14]	Chen YZ, Hua YH. The routine intervention of bronchial asthma in children[J] Chin J Pediatr，2004，42(2):104.
[15]	Song IH, Buttgereit F. Non-genomic glucocorticoid effects to probide the basis for new drug developments[J]．Mol Cell Endocrinol，2006，246(1-2):142-146.

[1]	陶宏宇, 叶菁菁, 俞劲, 杨秀珍, 钱晶晶, 徐彬, 徐玮泽, 舒强. 右心声学造影在儿童右向左分流相关疾病中的评估价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(10): 959-965.
[2]	刘琴, 刘瀚旻, 谢亮. 基质金属蛋白酶在儿童哮喘发生机制中作用的研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 564-568.
[3]	向韵, 卢游, 杨凡. 全氟及多氟烷基化合物暴露与儿童肥胖症相关性研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 569-574.
[4]	王杰, 袁泉, 王玥琦, 乔佳君, 谭春丽, 夏仲元, 刘守尧. 溃疡油在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的应用效果及安全性观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 480-484.
[5]	聂生军, 王钰, 王毅, 鲜小庆, 马生成. 复方倍他米松局部注射联合光动力疗法治疗小型瘢痕疙瘩的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(05): 404-410.
[6]	刘冉佳, 崔向丽, 周效竹, 曲伟, 朱志军. 儿童肝移植受者健康相关生存质量评价的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 302-309.
[7]	李义亮, 苏拉依曼·牙库甫, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 机器人与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术联合Nissen 胃底折叠术短期疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 512-517.
[8]	丁荷蓓, 王珣, 陈为国. 七氟烷吸入麻醉与异丙酚静脉麻醉在儿童腹股沟斜疝手术中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 570-574.
[9]	刘雯, 赵明栋, 夏伟, 潘以雄. 不同剂量比阿培南治疗重症肺炎的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 789-792.
[10]	中华医学会器官移植学分会, 中华医学会外科学分会外科手术学学组, 中华医学会外科学分会移植学组, 华南劈离式肝移植联盟. 劈离式供肝儿童肝移植中国临床操作指南[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 593-601.
[11]	刘军, 丘文静, 孙方昊, 李松盈, 易述红, 傅斌生, 杨扬, 罗慧. 在体与离体劈离式肝移植在儿童肝移植中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 688-693.
[12]	韩俊岭, 王刚, 马厉英, 连颖, 徐慧. 维生素D 联合匹维溴铵治疗腹泻型肠易激综合征患者疗效及对肠道屏障功能指标的影响研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 560-564.
[13]	张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
[14]	陈晓胜, 何佳, 刘方, 吴蕊, 杨海涛, 樊晓寒. 直立倾斜试验诱发31 秒心脏停搏的植入心脏起搏器儿童一例并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 488-494.
[15]	曹亚丽, 高雨萌, 张英谦, 李博, 杜军保, 金红芳. 儿童坐位不耐受的临床进展[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 510-515.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison Study on the Efficacy of Bronchiolitis Between Different Dosage of Nebulised Budesonide Suspension for Inhalation

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison Study on the Efficacy of Bronchiolitis Between Different Dosage of Nebulised Budesonide Suspension for Inhalation