早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征拔管后NIPPV和NCPAP作为无创呼吸支持过渡的临床效果对比

doi:10.20223/j.cnki.1000-8535.2025.04.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探究经鼻间歇正压通气（NIPPV）和经鼻持续正压通气（NCPAP）作为早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征气管插管机械通气拔管后无创呼吸支持过渡的临床效果的差异。方法纳入2021年1月—2023年6月在广东省吴川市妇幼保健计划生育服务中心治疗的新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征早产儿66例,用随机数字表法将患儿分为NIPPV组（33例）和NCPAP组（33例）。NIPPV组患儿予经鼻间歇正压通气作为过渡期无创呼吸支持,NCPAP组患儿则予以经鼻持续正压通气作为过渡期无创呼吸支持。对比两组患儿治疗前后血气分析结果、脱机失败率、无创呼吸支持时间、无创后吸氧时间、总给氧时间等指标。结果接受无创呼吸支持12 h后,NIPPV组患儿的PaO₂升至（76.46±1.10）mmHg,高于NCPAP组患儿的（75.51±2.15）mmHg（t=2.249,P=0.028）。此外,NIPPV组患儿的SaO₂升至（96.36±0.52）%,也高于NCPAP组患儿的（96.07±0.59）%（t=2.138,P=0.034）。而NIPPV组患儿的PaCO₂则降至（41.39±0.74）mmHg,较NCPAP组患儿的（41.87±0.95 ）mmHg低（t=-2.230,P=0.025）。NIPPV组无创呼吸支持时间为（3.09±0.52）d,短于NCPAP组的（3.45±0.62）d,且该差异有统计学意义（t=2.584,P=0.012）。同样的,NIPPV组总给氧时间（9.52±0.76）天较NCPAP组的（10.00±0.79）天短,且该差异有统计学意义（t=-2.548,P=0.013）。而两组在脱机失败率、无创呼吸支持后吸氧时间、不良反应发生率等方面比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论与NCPAP模式相比,早产儿拔管后应用NIPPV模式进行无创呼吸支持取得的临床效果更优。

关键词: 早产儿, 经鼻间歇正压通气, 经鼻持续正压通气, 临床效果

Abstract: Objective To explore the difference of clinical effect of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation（NIPPV）and nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation（NCPAP）as non-invasive respiratory support mode after extubation in preterm infants with endotracheal intubation．Methods Sixty-six cases of preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome treated in our hospital from January 2021 to June 2023 were included．All the subjects were randomly divided into NIPPV group（n=33）and NCPAP group（n=33）．The blood gas analysis results,weaning failure rate,non-invasive respiratory support time,oxygen inhalation time after noninvasive ventilation,total oxygen administration time．were compared between the two groups．Results After 12 hours of noninvasive respiratory support,PaO₂ in the NIPPV group increased to（76.46±1.10）mmHg,which was significantly higher than that（75.51±2.15）mmHg in the NCPAP group（t=2.249,P=0.028）．In addition,SaO₂ in the NIPPV group increased to （96.36±0.52）%,which was also significantly higher than that（96.07±0.59）% in the NCPAP group（t=2.138,P=0.034）．The PaCO₂ in the NIPPV group decreased to （41.39±0.74）mmHg,which was lower than that（41.87±0.95）mmHg in the NCPAP group（t=-2.230,P=0.025）．The duration of non-invasive respiratory support in the NIPPV group（3.09±0.52） days was shorter than that（3.45±0.62）days in the NCPAP group,and the difference was statistically significant（t=2.584,P=0.012）．Similarly,the total duration of oxygen administration in the NIPPV group（9.52±0.76）days was shorter than that（10.00±0.79）days in the NCPAP group,and the difference was statistically significant（t=-2.548,P=0.013）．There were no significant differences in weaning failure rate,oxygen inhalation time after noninvasive respiratory support,and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups（P>0.05）．Conclusions Compared with NCPAP mode,NIPPV mode for non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants after extubating has better clinical effect,and it is worthy of clinical application．

Key words: preterm infants, NIPPV, NCPAP, clinical effect

吴国豪, 吴贞德, 陈栋才, 康健泉, 林家叶. 早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征拔管后NIPPV和NCPAP作为无创呼吸支持过渡的临床效果对比[J]. 广州医药, 2025, 56(4): 516-522.

WU Guohao, WU Zhende, CHEN Dongcai, KANG Jianquan, LIN Jiaye. Comparison of the clinical effects of NIPPV and NCPAP as a noninvasive respiratory support for preterm infants after extubation[J]. Guangzhou Medical Journal, 2025, 56(4): 516-522.

参考文献

[1] 刘颖,段顺艳,杜岚岚,等.雾化肺表面活性物质联合无创辅助通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征[J].广州医药,2022,53(2):1-6.
[2] 白瑞苗,姜毅,郭金珍,等.《2019年欧洲新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征管理指南》推荐意见介绍[J].中华实用儿科临床杂志,2019,34(16):1201-1203.
[3] 周菲菲,王国胜,董海丽.氨溴索静脉用药联合不同通气方式治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的疗效评价[J].广州医药,2023,54(1):76-79.
[4] 戴瑞芝. 早产儿拔管后NIPPV和NCPAP作为无创呼吸支持模式的临床效果比较[J].健康必读,2021:(30):52.
[5] 赵仕国,杨子浩,张晨美,等.新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的管理:欧洲的共识指南(2022版)解读[J].浙江医学,2024,46(2):113-123,161.
[6] 娄五斌,张卫星.经鼻无创高频振荡通气和持续气道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征撤机后的应用比较[J].广东医学,2017,38(13):2037-2040.
[7] 谭俊杰,曹鹏辉,曾海权,等.nCPAP和nBiPAP两种无创辅助通气在早产儿撤机后的应用效果[J].国际医药卫生导报,2021,27(5):667-670.
[8] 何明嫄. 早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征高频振荡通气后两种撤机方式的安全性研究:前瞻性随机病例对照试验[D].厦门:厦门大学,2021.
[9] 朱艺芳,汪勇芬,陈永存,等.NIPPV和NCPAP作为早产儿拔管后无创呼吸支持模式的临床应用疗效对比[J].中国现代医生,2020,58(19):54-57,61.
[10] KOMATSU D F,DINIZ E M,FERRARO A A,et al.Randomized controlled trial comparing nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in premature infants after tracheal extubation[J].Rev Assoc Med Bras(1992),2016,62(6):568-574.
[11] 苏婕,石静云,张小妮,等.微创肺表面活性物质应用在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征中的临床研究[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2023,34(6):48-52.
[12] ZHOU J,BA Y,DU Y,et al.The etiology of neonatal intensive care unit death in extremely low birth weight infants:A multicenter survey in China[J].Am J Perinatol,2021,38(10):1048-1056.
[13] 肖贝如,李帅,钟嘉欣,等.LISA技术联合NCPAP治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的有效性分析[J].中外医学研究,2023,21(23):151-154.
[14] 张强. 早产儿中重度呼吸窘迫综合征应用肺复张联合压力调节容量控制模式的临床观察[J].中国中西医结合儿科学,2018,10(3):252-254.
[15] 陈林. 机械通气联合肺表面活性物质治疗重症新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征临床分析[J].中国社区医师,2016,32(14):35-36.
[16] 明诗诗. 贫血和红细胞输注对早产儿发生支气管肺发育不良的影响:一项倾向性评分匹配研究[D].重庆:重庆医科大学,2022.
[17] 王湧新. 运用nCPAP治疗NRDS极早产儿失败预测因素分析[D].赣州:赣南医学院,2022.
[18] 高广华,王军,郭华贤.经鼻间歇气道正压通气与持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸困难的效果比较[J].中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2018,10(12):74-77.
[19] 刘长靖. 对新生儿感染性肺炎患儿进行经鼻间歇正压通气治疗的效果研究[J].当代医药论丛,2020,18(9):99-100.
[20] 刘晓玲,朱芳艮,阮仁伟,等.不同无创呼吸机支持模式治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的临床效果[J].皖南医学院学报,2023,42(5):454-457.
[21] 黄超. 无创正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸暂停疗效观察[J].基层医学论坛,2019,23(11):1542-1544.
[22] 林硕,罗厚江,杨军,等.不同无创通气联合枸橼酸咖啡因治疗早产儿呼吸暂停疗效分析[J].医学研究杂志,2024,53(1):147-150,154.
[23] 卓泽勇,蔡蕊,赖婷婷.不同无创呼吸机辅助通气在早产儿RDS初始治疗中的疗效与安全性研究[J].黑龙江医药,2023,36(5):1145-1147.
[24] 曾贵祥,庞智东,黄燕萍,等.不同无创通气模式在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征初始治疗中的应用研究[J].微创医学,2023,18(6):684-688,693.