ObjectiveTo compare the effect of three different wetting liquid supply modes for noninvasive ventilation. MethodsNinety patients who accepted noninvasive ventilation between February and October 2014 were randomly divided into three groups with 30 in each. Patients in group A underwent humidification with traditional kettle water; those in group B received humidification by one-time automatic water supplying; and patients in group C received continuous infusion to add water for humidification. The wetting effect and humidification related situations among the three groups of patients were compared and analyzed. ResultsThere were statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of wetting effect, comfort degree, water renewal cycle, working time and economic cost (P<0.05). Good wetting rate of group C was superior to group A and B (P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between group A and B (P>0.05). Humidification comfort degree of group C was obviously higher than that in group A and B (P<0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference between group A and B (P>0.05). Water renewal cycle and working time of group C were significantly shorter than those in group A and B (P<0.05). At the same time, economic cost of group A and C was significantly less than that of group B (P<0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference between group A and C (P>0.05). ConclusionThe kind of continuous infusion for humidification in noninvasive ventilation has a good therapeutic effect for patients receiving airway wetting therapy, which is worthy of clinical popularization and application.