The Journal of international medical research · 2021
Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula therapy versus a standard oxygen face mask in patients with hypostatic pneumonia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Yamei, Zhang Jinchao, Xing Jia, Wang Ning, Wang Jing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the clinical effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy and a standard oxygen atomizer mask on the respiratory tract in patients with hypostatic pneumonia.
METHODS: We included patients with hypostatic pneumonia in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were provided continuous airway humidification by continuous oxygen atomization using either an HFNC or standard oxygen mask. Arterial blood gas analysis, the dyspnea score, inflammatory-related parameters, and adverse events of patients in the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had HFNC delivery and 57 had a standard oxygen atomizer mask. After 7 days of treatment, patients in the HFNC group had a higher partial pressure of arterial blood oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (268.12±28.44 vs 238.28±30.04) and lower partial pressure of arterial blood carbon dioxide (38.02±8.84 vs 49.27±7.84 mmHg) than those in the standard oxygen mask group. The dyspnea score and inflammatory-related parameters in the HFNC group were significantly lower than those in the standard oxygen mask group. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the HFNC group than in the standard oxygen mask group.
CONCLUSION: HFNC therapy relieves clinical symptoms more quickly than a standard oxygen mask and reduces the incidence of adverse events.
METHODS: We included patients with hypostatic pneumonia in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were provided continuous airway humidification by continuous oxygen atomization using either an HFNC or standard oxygen mask. Arterial blood gas analysis, the dyspnea score, inflammatory-related parameters, and adverse events of patients in the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had HFNC delivery and 57 had a standard oxygen atomizer mask. After 7 days of treatment, patients in the HFNC group had a higher partial pressure of arterial blood oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (268.12±28.44 vs 238.28±30.04) and lower partial pressure of arterial blood carbon dioxide (38.02±8.84 vs 49.27±7.84 mmHg) than those in the standard oxygen mask group. The dyspnea score and inflammatory-related parameters in the HFNC group were significantly lower than those in the standard oxygen mask group. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the HFNC group than in the standard oxygen mask group.
CONCLUSION: HFNC therapy relieves clinical symptoms more quickly than a standard oxygen mask and reduces the incidence of adverse events.