A Comparative Study on Three Different Airway Humidification Methods for Patients with Artificial Airway Offline_Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Authors：

YanPengbo ¹ , QuanJinmei ¹ , LiZhijing ¹ ,  YaoLixiu ²

1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital to Logistics Institute of Armed Police Forces, Tianjin, 300162, China;
2. ;

Corresponding author：

YaoLixiu, Email: zdjjzx@163.com

Keywords：

Artificial airway; Airway humidification; Heated humidification; Saturated gas

DOI：

10.7507/1671-6205.2014117

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To compare the effects of different airway humidification methods for patients with artificial airway offline. Methods One hundred and fifty-five critically ill patients with artificial airway who did not need mechanical ventilation for more than 72 h, admitted in the Affiliated Hospital to Armed Police Logistics College between January 2012 and December 2012, were recruited in the study.They were randomly divided into 3 groups to receive different airway humidification treatment, ie.MR410 device for group A, MR850 device for group B, AIRVO2 device for group C.PaO₂, SpO₂, heart rate, and breathing frequency were measured after 72 h.The Airway Scoring System was used for evaluation of sputum viscosity.The time of pulmonary infection control was also recorded. Results There were no significant differences in gender, age, underlying diseases, duration of artificial airway, and APACHEⅡscore among three groups (P > 0.05).There were significant differences in respiratory frequency, PaO₂, SpO₂, heart rate, sputum viscosity, humidification effect, lung infection control time among three groups (P < 0.05), with group C better than group A and B in above parameters. Conclusions Compared with MR410 and MR850 humidification devices, AIRVO2 is a more ideal device for airway humidification, and is more suitable for patients with artificial airway offline.

Citation： YanPengbo, QuanJinmei, LiZhijing, YaoLixiu. A Comparative Study on Three Different Airway Humidification Methods for Patients with Artificial Airway Offline. Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2014, 13(5): 480-483. doi: 10.7507/1671-6205.2014117 Copy

1.	周秀秀, 于静蕊, 杨华, 等.ICU机械通气患者气道湿化液体量与影响因素的回归模型及相关分析.重庆医科大学学报, 2011, 36:101-103.
2.	王晓慧, 郑俊波, 王希臻, 等.碳酸氢钠作为机械通气患者气道湿化剂的临床研究.护理管理杂志, 2011, 11:670-672.
3.	蒋敏, 李海波.机械通气时气道湿化的进展.中国危重病急救医学, 2012, 24:443-446.
4.	高明榕, 成守珍, 张妙音, 等.集束化综合护理方案预防呼吸机相关性肺炎的研究.中国护理管理, 2010, 10:14-16.
5.	王静, 鱼丽荣, 石晓霞.比较3种不同人工气道湿化方法的效果比较.护理研究, 2010, 24(5A):48-49.
6.	吕秀艳, 于世荣, 史磊.微量泵控制气道湿化对气管切开并发症的影响.中华现代护理杂志, 2010, 16:46-47.
7.	Branson RD.Secretion management in the mechanically ventilatedpatient.Respir Care, 2007, 52:1328-1342.
8.	熊恩平, 周泽云.不同气道湿化和吸痰方法对预防急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者痰痂形成的影响.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:23-25.
9.	黄德斌, 陈务贤, 宁传艺.国内持续气道湿化对人工气道湿化效果的Meta分析.护理研究, 2010, 24:9-11.
10.	江方正, 李雪, 叶向红, 等.持续加温湿化氧疗在气管切开患者脱机中的应用.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:18-20.
11.	王文博, 蒋敏, 王怀泉, 等.ICU长期机械通气患者气道湿化效果探讨.哈尔滨医科大学学报, 2012, 46:448-451.
12.	代冰, 康健, 谭伟, 等.湿化氧疗在肺部感染后气管切开患者中的应用.中华结核和呼吸杂志, 2012, 35:222-224.
13.	陈凤佳, 李立君, 曾勉.气管切开患者脱机期间不同湿化方式选择的研究.中国呼吸与危重监护杂志, 2011, 10:64-67.
14.	孙龙凤, 代冰, 王爱平.不同气道湿化方法应用于气管切开患者的效果比较.中华护理杂志, 2013, 48:18-20.
15.	孙齐云.气管切开两种湿化方法的临床效果比较.护理实践与研究, 2013, 10:107-108.
16.	Rozsasi A, Leiacker R, Fischer Y, et al.Influence of passive humidification on respiratory heat loss in tracheotomized patients.Head Neck, 2006, 28:609-613.
17.	谭伟, 代冰, 孙龙凤, 等.MR410与MR850湿化系统对有创机械通气患者湿化效果的比较.中国呼吸与危重监护杂志, 2012, 11:470-474.
18.	熊恩平, 周泽云.不同气道湿化和吸痰方法对预防急性呼吸窘迫综合症患者痰形成的影响.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:341-343.
19.	Lellouche F, TailléS, Lefrançois F, et al.Humidification performance of 48 passive airway humidifiers:comparison with manufacturer data.Chest, 2009, 135:276-286.
20.	孙玉姣, 高敏, 张银.两种气道湿化方法对呼吸机相关性肺炎发生率的影响.中华护理杂志, 2010, 45:18-20.

1. 周秀秀, 于静蕊, 杨华, 等.ICU机械通气患者气道湿化液体量与影响因素的回归模型及相关分析.重庆医科大学学报, 2011, 36:101-103.
2. 王晓慧, 郑俊波, 王希臻, 等.碳酸氢钠作为机械通气患者气道湿化剂的临床研究.护理管理杂志, 2011, 11:670-672.
3. 蒋敏, 李海波.机械通气时气道湿化的进展.中国危重病急救医学, 2012, 24:443-446.
4. 高明榕, 成守珍, 张妙音, 等.集束化综合护理方案预防呼吸机相关性肺炎的研究.中国护理管理, 2010, 10:14-16.
5. 王静, 鱼丽荣, 石晓霞.比较3种不同人工气道湿化方法的效果比较.护理研究, 2010, 24(5A):48-49.
6. 吕秀艳, 于世荣, 史磊.微量泵控制气道湿化对气管切开并发症的影响.中华现代护理杂志, 2010, 16:46-47.
7. Branson RD.Secretion management in the mechanically ventilatedpatient.Respir Care, 2007, 52:1328-1342.
8. 熊恩平, 周泽云.不同气道湿化和吸痰方法对预防急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者痰痂形成的影响.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:23-25.
9. 黄德斌, 陈务贤, 宁传艺.国内持续气道湿化对人工气道湿化效果的Meta分析.护理研究, 2010, 24:9-11.
10. 江方正, 李雪, 叶向红, 等.持续加温湿化氧疗在气管切开患者脱机中的应用.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:18-20.
11. 王文博, 蒋敏, 王怀泉, 等.ICU长期机械通气患者气道湿化效果探讨.哈尔滨医科大学学报, 2012, 46:448-451.
12. 代冰, 康健, 谭伟, 等.湿化氧疗在肺部感染后气管切开患者中的应用.中华结核和呼吸杂志, 2012, 35:222-224.
13. 陈凤佳, 李立君, 曾勉.气管切开患者脱机期间不同湿化方式选择的研究.中国呼吸与危重监护杂志, 2011, 10:64-67.
14. 孙龙凤, 代冰, 王爱平.不同气道湿化方法应用于气管切开患者的效果比较.中华护理杂志, 2013, 48:18-20.
15. 孙齐云.气管切开两种湿化方法的临床效果比较.护理实践与研究, 2013, 10:107-108.
16. Rozsasi A, Leiacker R, Fischer Y, et al.Influence of passive humidification on respiratory heat loss in tracheotomized patients.Head Neck, 2006, 28:609-613.
17. 谭伟, 代冰, 孙龙凤, 等.MR410与MR850湿化系统对有创机械通气患者湿化效果的比较.中国呼吸与危重监护杂志, 2012, 11:470-474.
18. 熊恩平, 周泽云.不同气道湿化和吸痰方法对预防急性呼吸窘迫综合症患者痰形成的影响.中华护理杂志, 2011, 46:341-343.
19. Lellouche F, TailléS, Lefrançois F, et al.Humidification performance of 48 passive airway humidifiers:comparison with manufacturer data.Chest, 2009, 135:276-286.
20. 孙玉姣, 高敏, 张银.两种气道湿化方法对呼吸机相关性肺炎发生率的影响.中华护理杂志, 2010, 45:18-20.

Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

A Comparative Study on Three Different Airway Humidification Methods for Patients with Artificial Airway Offline

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content