Gregoretti Cesare, Confalonieri Marco, Navalesi Paolo, Squadrone Vincenzo, Frigerio Pamela, Beltrame Fabio, Carbone Giorgio, Conti Giorgio, Gamna Federica, Nava Stefano, Calderini Edoardo, Skrobik Yoanna, Antonelli Massimo
Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera CTO-CRF-ICORMA, Via Zuretti 29, 10100 Turin, Italy.
Intensive Care Med. 2002 Mar;28(3):278-84. doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1208-7. Epub 2002 Feb 6.
To evaluate patient comfort, skin breakdown and eye irritation when comparing a prototype face mask (PM) and conventional face masks (CMs) during non-invasive ventilation.
Eight centers (intensive or intermediate care units). Multicenter randomized study.
Patients with acute respiratory failure of different etiologies.
Patients were randomized to CMs or PM when ventilation was expected to last at least 12 consecutive hours a day for two consecutive days. Patient comfort, skin breakdown and eye irritation, assessed by means of standardized scoring systems, were measured after 24 and 48 h and before discontinuing ventilation.
Hundred ninety-four patients were randomized. Forty-seven patients were finally enrolled: PM (24) and CMs (23). Ventilator settings were similar in the two groups at the beginning of the treatment and after 24 and 48 h. Skin breakdown was significantly higher in the CMs group over the study period ( p<0.001). Patient comfort was higher in the PM group after 24 and 48 h ( p=0.008 and p<0.001, respectively). Eye irritation was absent in both groups after 24 h and did not differ significantly after 48 h (p=0.539). Before ventilation was discontinued skin breakdown and patient comfort were significantly higher in the CMs group, when compared to the PM group ( p<0.001 and p=0.003, respectively). Eye irritation was slightly higher in the PM versus CMs group ( p=0.21). The time on ventilation was not significantly different between the two groups ( p=0.830).
The PM significantly reduced skin breakdown while improving patient comfort, compared to the CMs.
在无创通气期间比较一种原型面罩(PM)和传统面罩(CMs)时,评估患者舒适度、皮肤破损情况和眼部刺激。
八个中心(重症或中级护理单元)。多中心随机研究。
不同病因的急性呼吸衰竭患者。
当预计通气每天至少持续12小时且连续两天时,将患者随机分为CMs组或PM组。通过标准化评分系统评估患者舒适度、皮肤破损情况和眼部刺激,在24小时和48小时后以及停止通气前进行测量。
194例患者被随机分组。最终纳入47例患者:PM组(24例)和CMs组(23例)。两组在治疗开始时以及24小时和48小时后的通气设置相似。在研究期间,CMs组的皮肤破损情况显著更高(p<0.001)。24小时和48小时后,PM组的患者舒适度更高(分别为p=0.008和p<0.001)。24小时后两组均无眼部刺激,48小时后差异无统计学意义(p=0.539)。与PM组相比,在停止通气前,CMs组的皮肤破损情况和患者舒适度显著更高(分别为p<0.001和p=0.003)。PM组的眼部刺激略高于CMs组(p=0.21)。两组的通气时间差异无统计学意义(p=0.830)。
与CMs相比,PM显著减少了皮肤破损,同时提高了患者舒适度。