Suppr超能文献

主动与被动湿化对呼吸机相关性医院获得性肺炎的影响

[The effects of active and passive humidification on ventilation-associated nosocomial pneumonia].

作者信息

Kranabetter R, Leier M, Kammermeier D, Just H-M, Heuser D

机构信息

Institut für Klinikhygiene, medizinische Mikrobiologie und klinische Infektiologie, Klinikum Nürnberg.

出版信息

Anaesthesist. 2004 Jan;53(1):29-35. doi: 10.1007/s00101-003-0607-7.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Airway humidification of ventilated patients in an intensive care unit may be established by heated humidifying systems (active) or by the means of a (passive) heat and moisture exchange filter (HMEF). There is a controversial discussion about the influence of the type of humidification on the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Among 3,585 patients both methods were tested over a period of 21 months in an open, non-randomized cohort study. The aim of the investigation was to compare the incidence of VAP caused by a change of humidification strategy.

METHOD

All patients in a 16-bed surgical intensive care unit who required mechanical ventilation, were included. In the first period (period AB) 1,887 cases were handled with a heated humidifier. During the second period (period PB) 1,698 patients were treated using a HMEF. Infection control was established according to the national Infection Surveillance Program (KISS) based on the CDC criteria for VAP.

RESULTS

During the period of 42 months, 99 cases of VAP were reported. The incidence for VAP was found to be 13.5 (AB) and 9.6 (PB) per 1,000 ventilator days, a rate of 32.3 and 22.4 VAP per 1,000 patients, respectively. The rate of VAP among the groups ( p=0.068) and the incidence of VAP per 1,000 ventilator days ( p=0.089) only just failed to reach a significant level, but in the group of patients requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 2 days, the difference did reach statistical significance ( p=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that the rate of VAP could be significantly reduced by changing the strategy from active to passive humidification devices, especially concerning patients requiring long-term respirator therapy. A more physiological humidification and a reduced number of airway manipulations are discussed as a possible explanation.

摘要

研究目的

重症监护病房中接受机械通气患者的气道湿化可通过加热湿化系统(主动式)或采用(被动式)热湿交换过滤器(HMEF)来实现。关于湿化类型对呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率的影响存在争议。在一项为期21个月的开放性、非随机队列研究中,对3585例患者测试了这两种方法。该研究的目的是比较因湿化策略改变导致的VAP发生率。

方法

纳入16张床位的外科重症监护病房中所有需要机械通气的患者。在第一阶段(AB期),1887例患者使用加热湿化器处理。在第二阶段(PB期),1698例患者使用HMEF治疗。根据国家感染监测计划(KISS)并依据美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的VAP标准建立感染控制措施。

结果

在42个月期间,报告了99例VAP。VAP的发生率为每1000个呼吸机日13.5例(AB期)和9.6例(PB期),每1000例患者中VAP发生率分别为32.3例和22.4例。两组间VAP发生率(p = 0.068)以及每1000个呼吸机日的VAP发生率(p = 0.089)仅略未达到显著水平,但在需要机械通气超过2天的患者组中,差异具有统计学意义(p = 0.012)。

结论

我们的结果表明,将湿化策略从主动式改为被动式湿化设备可显著降低VAP发生率,尤其是对于需要长期呼吸机治疗的患者。讨论了更符合生理的湿化和减少气道操作次数作为可能的解释。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验