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.
Objective To compare the sequential efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) with non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV). Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of NIV sequential invasive mechanical ventilation with HFNC were included in the Chinese Journal Full-text Database, VIP Journal database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4 software. Results A total of 2404 subjects were included in 19 studies. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with NIV, HFNC had a statistically significant difference in reducing patients' re-intubation rate in invasive mechanical ventilation sequence [relative risk (RR)=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 - 0.86, Z=3.10, P=0.002]. HFNC showed statistically significant difference compared with NIV in reducing lung infection rate (RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.21 - 0.79, Z=2.67, P=0.008). HFNC was significantly different from NIV in terms of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (MD=–5.77, 95%CI –7.64 - –3.90, Z=6.05, P<0.00001). HFNC was significantly different from NIV in improving 24 h oxygenation index (MD=13.16, 95%CI 8.77 - 17.55, Z=5.87, P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in ICU mortality between HFNC and NIV (RR=0.70, 95%CI 0.45 - 1.08, Z=1.61, P=0.11). Conclusion Compared with NIV, sequential application of HFNC in invasive mechanical ventilation can improve the reintubation rate and pulmonary infection rate to a certain extent, reduce the length of ICU stay and improve the 24 h oxygenation index, while there is no difference in ICU mortality, which is worthy of clinical application.