切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2013, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (05) : 579 -585. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2013.05.002

所属专题: 文献

论著

双水平正压通气和经鼻持续气道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征INSURE治疗方式中应用的比较
孔令凯1, 孔祥永1, 李丽华1, 董建英1, 商明霞1, 池婧涵1, 郑杨1, 马俊娥1, 马倩1, 封志纯1,*,*()   
  1. 1. 100007,北京军区总医院附属八一儿童医院早产儿重症监护病房
  • 收稿日期:2013-04-04 修回日期:2013-08-28 出版日期:2013-10-01
  • 通信作者: 封志纯

Duo Positive Airway Pressure Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Neonates With Respiratory Distress Syndrome After Surfactant Treatment

Ling-kai KONG1, Xiang-yong KONG1, Li-hua LI1, Jian-ying DONG1, Ming-xia SHANG1, Jing-han CHI1, Yang ZHENG1, Jun-e MA1, Qian MA1, Zhi-chun FENG1()   

  1. 1. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Bayi Children's Hospital Affiliated to General Hospital of Beijing Military Command of People's Liberation Army, Beijing 100007, China
  • Received:2013-04-04 Revised:2013-08-28 Published:2013-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Zhi-chun FENG
  • About author:
    (Corresponding author: FENG Zhi-chun, Email: ).
引用本文:

孔令凯, 孔祥永, 李丽华, 董建英, 商明霞, 池婧涵, 郑杨, 马俊娥, 马倩, 封志纯. 双水平正压通气和经鼻持续气道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征INSURE治疗方式中应用的比较[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2013, 09(05): 579-585.

Ling-kai KONG, Xiang-yong KONG, Li-hua LI, Jian-ying DONG, Ming-xia SHANG, Jing-han CHI, Yang ZHENG, Jun-e MA, Qian MA, Zhi-chun FENG. Duo Positive Airway Pressure Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Neonates With Respiratory Distress Syndrome After Surfactant Treatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2013, 09(05): 579-585.

目的

探讨新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(NRDS)的早产儿在INSURE治疗方式中使用双水平正压通气(DuoPAP)和持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)模式,是否可降低有创呼吸支持率。

方法

选取2012年3月至2013年2月在北京军区总医院附属八一儿童医院住院的胎龄为(30~34+6/7)孕周,患有NRDS,生后6 h内至少需要无创呼吸机支持的早产儿201例为研究对象,其中129例患儿不符合纳入标准故排除,另72例患儿全部气管插管使用肺表面活性物质(PS)后,按压30 min,并查阅随机数字表,将其随机分为DuoPAP组(n=38)和NCPAP组(n=34),若DuoPAP和NCPAP不能维持,则再次使用气管内插管、呼吸机辅助呼吸。主要观察指标为患儿生后24 h内,48 h内,72 h内的总插管有创呼吸支持率,使用无创呼吸支持后1 h,12 h,24 h,48 h,72 h的二氧化碳分压(PaCO2),氧分压(PaO2),氧合指数(OI)等比较。

结果

DuoPAP组48 h内,72 h内的总有创呼吸支持率明显低于NCPAP组,2组比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.09,4.09;P=0.04,0.04),但2组在24 h内有创呼吸支持率比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.80,P=0.37)。DuoPAP组1 h,12 h PaO2明显大于NCPAP组,2组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=2.99,2.56;P=0.00,0.01),但24 h,48 h,72 h比较,差异无统计学意义(t=-0.40,1.39,0.96;P=0.69,0.17,0.34)。DuoPAP组PaCO2 12 h,24 h明显小于NCPAP组,2组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.85,-2.84;P=0.01,0.01),但1 h,48 h,72 h比较,差异无统计学意义(t=-1.72,-0.99,0.09;P=0.09,0.33,0.93)。DuoPAP组氧合指数(OI)在1 h,12 h高于NCPAP组,2组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=2.54,2.46;P=0.01,0.02), 24 h,48 h,72 h比较,差异无统计学意义(t=-0.43,1.04,0.85;P=0.67,0.30,0.40)。2组患儿的用氧总时间、无创呼吸机支持时间、有创呼吸机支持时间、气胸发病率、NEC发病率、IVH发病率(Ⅲ级以上)、败血症、痰培养呈阳性率、早产儿视网膜病变(ROP)、持续肺动脉高压(PPHN)发病率、全肠道喂养的时间、恢复出生体重时间、体重增长率、总住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

在对患有NRDS的早产儿使用INSURE治疗方式中,使用DuoPAP较NCPAP可明显降低插管有创呼吸支持率,不增加并发症,值得临床推广使用。

Objective

To determine whether duo positive airway pressure (DuoPAP) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can effectively reduce the need of intubation and mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates with severe neonate respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) after surfactant treatment.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, 201 preterm infants from March 2012 to February 2013 in Bayi Children's Hospital Affiliated to General Hospital of Beijing Military Command of People's Liberation Army were assessed for eligibility and 129 were excluded. At last, a total of 72 infants (gestational ages at 30-34+ 6/7weeks) with NRDS were given surfactant and then randomly assigned to receive DuoPAP group (DuoPAP group, n=38) or NCPAP (NCPAP, n=34). If the two noninvasive ventilation were not effective, intubation and mechanical ventilation were used. The primary outcome were the need for mechanical ventilation within the first 72 hours of life. PaCO2, PaO2, oxygenate index (OI) were compared between the two groups in 1 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Investigation in Bayi Children's Hospital Affiliated to General Hospital of Beijing Military Command of People's Liberation Army. Informed consent was obtained from all participates' parents.

Results

Rates of intubated in the first 24 hours do not have significant difference between DuoPAP group and NCPAP groups (χ2=0.80, P=0.37), however, more infants in the DuoPAP group remained extubated compared with those in the NCPAP groups within 48, 72 hours (χ2=4.09, 4.09; P=0.04, 0.04). PaO2 at 1 h, 12 h in DuoPAP group were significantly higher than those of NCPAP group(t=2.99, 2.56; P=0.00, 0.01), there were no differences of PaO2 at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h(t=-0.40, 1.39, 0.96; P=0.69, 0.71, 0.34). PaCO2 between the two group had significant differences at 12 h, 24 h(t=-2.85, -2.84; P=0.01, 0.01), but there were no differences at 1 h, 48 h, 72 h(t=-1.72, -0.99, 0.09; P=0.09, 0.33, 0.93). There was a different of OI at 1 h, 12 h between the two groups(t=2.54, 2.46; P=0.01, 0.02), but there were no different in 24 h, 48 h, 72 h(t=-0.43, 1.04, 0.85; P=0.67, 0.30, 0.40). No significant differences were noted between 2 groups for total time of oxygen, total time on MV, Pneumothorax, necrotizing enterocolitic (NEC), persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)(grades 3 and 4), retinopathy of prematurity, ROP, septicemia, sputum culture, time to full feeds, recovery time of the birth weight, weight increasing rate and duration of hospitalization (P>0.05).

Conclusions

DuoPAP can decrease the need for mechanical ventilation compared with NCPAP in NRDS after surfactant treatment and worth promoting.

表1 2组一般资料比较 [n(%)]
Table 1 The general information of two groups [n(%)]
表2 2组患儿呼吸支持时间和结局[n(%)]
Table 2 Comparison of time and outcomes between two groups [n(%))
表3 2组PaO2水平比较 (mm Hg,±s)
Table 3 Comparison of PaO2 levels between two groups (mm Hg,±s)
表4 2组PaCO2水平比较(mm Hg,±s)
Table 4 Comparison of PaCO2 levels between two groups (mm Hg,±s)
表5 2组OI比较(%,±s)
Table 5 Comparison of OI between two groups (%,±s)
1
Shao XM, Ye HM, Qiu XS. Practical pediatrics[M]. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2011, 395-398.
2
Verder H, Bohlin K, Kamper J, et al. Nasal CPAP and surfactant for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome and prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2009, 98(9): 1400-1408.
3
Ammari A, Suri M, Musavlievic V, et al. Variables associated with the early failure of nasal CPAP in very low birth weight infants[J]. J Pediatr, 2005, 147(3): 341-347.
4
Tevens TP, Harrington EW, Blennow M, et al. Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007, (4): CD003063.
5
Dani C, Corsini I, Bertini G, et al. The INSURE method in preterra infants of less than 30 weeks'gestation[J]. Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2010, 23(9): 1024-1029.
6
Morley C. Continuous distending pressure[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed, 1999, 81(2): 152-156.
7
Jucille M, Vineet B, Joao GA, et al. Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome a randomized controlled trial[J]. Pediatrics, 2011, 127(2): 300-307.
8
Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, et al. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome:A randomized, controlled, prospective study[J]. J Pediatr, 2007, 150(5): 521-526.
9
Kumar M, Avasthi S, Ahuja S, et al. Unsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation to prevent extubation failure in neonates: A randomized controlled trial[J]. Indian J Pediatr, 2011, 78(7): 801-806.
10
Sai Sunil Kishore M, Dutta S, Kumar P. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2009, 98(9): 1412-1415.
11
Xie LX, Liu YN. Reply Dr. Sunfeng Chun's question about the conceptual issues between BiPAP and BIPAP[J]. Chin J Tubercul Respiart Dis, 2005, 28(3): 208.
12
Ramanathan R, Sekar KC, Rasmussen M, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants <30 weeks' gestation: A randomized, controlled trial[J]. J Perinatol, 2012, 32(5): 336-343.
13
Morley CJ, Davis PG, Doyle LW, et al. Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very preterm infants[J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 358(14): 700-708.
14
Gustavo P, Mohamed AA, Lee SK. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and outcomes in preterm infants: A retrospective analysis[J]. Paediatr Child Health, 2008, 13: 99-103.
15
Dumpa V, Katz K, Northrup V, et al. SNIPPV vs NIPPV: Does synchronization matter[J]. J Perinatol, 2012, 32(6): 438-442.
16
Owen LS, Morley CJ, Dawson JA, et al. Effects of non-synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation on spontaneous breathing in preterm infants[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2011, 96(6): F422-428.
17
Ramanathan R. Nasal respiratory support through the nares: Its time has come[J]. J Perinatol, 2010, 30(Suppl): S67-72.
18
Abyar H, GHafari V, Nakhshab M, et al. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in weaning from mechanical ventilation in preterm infants[J]. J Mazand Univ Med Sci,2011,84(21):113-120.
19
Yang JS, Wu BQ, He WS, et al. Effects of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation intreatment for neonates respiratory distress syndrome[J] Chin J Neonatol, 2011, 26(5): 315-318.
20
Gao WW, Chen YB, Zhang Y, et al. Randomized trail of nasal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Chin J Contemp Pediatr, 2010, 12(7): 524-526.
21
Dumpa V, Northrup V, Bhandari V. Type and timing of ventilation in the first postnatal week is associated with bronchopulmonary dysplasia/death[J]. Am J Perinatol, 2011, 28(4): 321-330.
22
Lista G, Castoldi F, Fontana P, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: A randomised control trial[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2010, 95(2): F85-89.
[1] 李博, 孔德璇, 彭芳华, 吴文瑛. 超声在胎儿肺静脉异位引流诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(04): 437-441.
[2] 李文琳, 羊玲, 邢凯慧, 陈彩华, 钟丽花, 张娅琴, 张薇. 脐动脉血血气分析联合振幅整合脑电图对新生儿窒息脑损伤的早期诊断价值分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 550-558.
[3] 胡诤贇, 史建伟, 申建伟, 王冰, 蒋春苗, 刘冲. 基于机器学习鉴定早产儿支气管肺发育不良的关键基因[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 446-454.
[4] 魏徐, 张鸽, 伍金林. 新生儿脓毒症相关性凝血病的监测和治疗[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 379-386.
[5] 陈樱, 陈艳莉. 高龄孕妇心率变异性原因及围产结局分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 295-301.
[6] 李聪, 徐艳, 吴铭, 丁瑞东, 王军. 极低出生体重儿出生时血清25-羟维生素D水平与其生后早期喂养不耐受关系的临床分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 309-314.
[7] 张海金, 王增国, 蔡慧君, 赵炳彤. 2020至2022年西安市儿童医院新生儿细菌感染分布及耐药监测分析[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 222-229.
[8] 饶林静, 罗皓梨, 钟山. 不同时长PPV在体外循环心脏大血管术后并发ARDS中的临床应用[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 575-577.
[9] 罗婷, 张实. 5种生物标志物对ARDS预后的预测分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 471-475.
[10] 李伟, 卓剑, 黄川, 黄有攀. Lac、HO-1、sRAGE、CRP/ALB表达及脓毒症并发ARDS危险因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 514-516.
[11] 张松涛, 李世金, 凌霄, 吴文辉. 胸部物理治疗联合布地奈德雾化对多发伤患者并发ARDS的临床分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 373-375.
[12] 胡宗俊, 陈建国, 黄霞. ARDS机械通气继发肺栓塞危险因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 388-390.
[13] 冀京雷, 李秀丽, 贾亚男, 冯会敏, 刘丽艳. 改良aEEG评分评估高危足月低体质量新生儿脑损伤的效果分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 165-169.
[14] 陈蕊, 杨洪娜, 方巍, 李鑫鑫, 李甜甜, 于孝义, 王艳雪, 李文玉. 血清与支气管肺泡灌洗液中细胞因子水平与肺内外ARDS的相关性研究[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 251-258.
[15] 李变, 王莉娜, 桑田, 李珊, 杜雪燕, 李春华, 张兴云, 管巧, 王颖, 冯琪, 蒙景雯. 亚低温技术治疗缺氧缺血性脑病新生儿的临床分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 639-643.
阅读次数
全文


摘要