Sutton P J, Perkins C L, Giles S P, McAuley D F, Gao F
Intensive Care Unit, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust (Teaching), Bordesley Green East, Birmingham, B9 5SS, England.
Anaesthesia. 2005 Jan;60(1):72-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04030.x.
In this controlled, randomised cross-over trial on 26 intensive care patients, we compared the effects on haemodynamic and respiratory profiles of continuous positive airway pressure delivered through the Hamilton Galileo ventilator or a Drager CF 800 device. We also compared the nursing time saved using the two approaches when weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. We did not find significant differences in haemodynamics, respiratory rate, physiological dead space, oxygen saturation and carbon dioxide production between the continuous positive airway pressure generated by the Galileo and Drager machines. However, there was a 10-fold reduction in nursing time using the Galileo ventilator compared with the Drager generator. We conclude that continuous positive airway pressure delivered through the Galileo ventilator is as efficient as a Drager device but consumes less nursing time.
在这项针对26名重症监护患者的对照随机交叉试验中,我们比较了通过汉密尔顿伽利略呼吸机或德尔格CF 800设备输送持续气道正压通气对血流动力学和呼吸状况的影响。我们还比较了在患者从机械通气撤机时使用这两种方法节省的护理时间。我们发现,伽利略呼吸机和德尔格设备产生的持续气道正压通气在血流动力学、呼吸频率、生理死腔、血氧饱和度和二氧化碳产生方面没有显著差异。然而,与德尔格发生器相比,使用伽利略呼吸机的护理时间减少了10倍。我们得出结论,通过伽利略呼吸机输送持续气道正压通气与德尔格设备一样有效,但消耗的护理时间更少。