Objective To compare the advantages between SmartCare weaning and protocoldirected weaning in COPD patients regarding five aspects including comfort degree of COPD patients in weaning stage, workload of medical staff, weaning success rate, weaning time, and complications associated with mechanical ventilation. Methods COPD patients who’s planning to receive ventilation weaning were randomly divided into a SmartCare weaning group ( SC group) and a protocol-directed weaning group ( SBT group) . The comfort degree of patients and workload of medical staff were assessed by the visual analogue scale ( VAS) as the weaning plan started. 0 was for the most discomfort and maximal workload, and 10 was for the most comfort and minimal workload. Data fromthe following aspects had been recorded: times of blood gas analysis, weaning success rate, weaning time, self-extubation rate, the rate of re-intubation within 48 hours, and ventilator-associated pneumonia ( VAP) incidences. Results 40 patients were selected and divided into the SC group ( n =19) and the SBT group ( n =21) . There was no significant difference in the enrolled age and APACHEⅡ between two groups. The VAS scores was higher in the SC group than that in the SBT group in the first three days ( Plt;0.01) . The weaning time was shorter in the SBT group than that in the SBT group [ ( 4.7 ±2.7) days vs. ( 5.5 ±3.2) days] , without significant difference between two groups ( P gt;0.05) . There were no differences in times of blood gas analysis, weaning success rate, weaning time, self-extubation rate, the rate of re-intubation within 48 hours, and ventilator-associated pneumonia ( VAP) incidences between two groups ( P gt; 0.05) .Conclusion As compared with protocol-directed weaning, SmartCare weaning can increase comfort degree of patients and reduce the workload of medical staff with similar weaning success rate, weaning time, and complications associated with mechanical ventilation.
Objective To compare the effect of different doses of compound betamethasone intradermal block on post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) in elderly patients. Methods Between June 2013 and December 2014, 96 elderly patients who matched the criteria of PHN were chosen and randomly divided into saline control group (group C), compound betamethasone 0.5 mL group (group B0.5) and compound betamethasone 1.0 mL group (group B1.0). For the control group, 20 mL analgesic saline liquid including 5 mL of 2% lidocaine was used. And 0.5 and 1.0 mL compound betamethasone was added into the solution of group C to get the solution for group B0.5 and group B1.0, respectively. The patients got intracutaneous injection once in the affected area on the day 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and patients in the same group were injected the same solution of analgesic liquid. All the patients took the same medicine during treatment. Their visual analog scale (VAS) scores, quality of sleep (QS) scores and adverse events before treatment (T0), at discharging from the hospital (T1), and three months after discharging (T2) were carefully noted and analyzed. Results The VAS and QS scores of the three groups at T1 and T2 improved significantly compared with those at T0 (P < 0.05). The VAS and QS scores of group B0.5 and group B1.0 improved significantly more compared with group C (P < 0.05), and the difference of VAS and QS scores between group B0.5 and group B1.0 was not statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). Conclusions Adding 0.5 mL or 1 mL of compound betamethasone to the 20 mL analgesic liquid for intradermal block treatment on PHN can obviously release patients’ pain and improve their sleep quality. Compared with 1 mL, adding 0.5 mL compound betamethasone to the 20 mL analgesic liquid for intradermal block treatment on PHN is a more ideal dose.