Vianello Andrea, Corrado Antonio, Arcaro Giovanna, Gallan Federico, Ori Carlo, Minuzzo Michele, Bevilacqua Matteo
Unità di Terapia Semi-Intensiva Respiratoria, Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Padova, Italy.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Feb;84(2):83-8; discussion 89-91. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000151941.97266.96.
The efficacy of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, in addition to standard chest physical treatments, was investigated as a first-line intervention for patients with neuromuscular diseases with respiratory tract infections and airway mucous encumbrance.
The short-term outcomes of 11 consecutive neuromuscular disease patients with respiratory tract infections and tracheobronchial mucous encumbrance who were administered mechanical insufflation-exsufflation and conventional chest physical treatments in an intensive care unit were compared with the outcomes of 16 historical matched controls who had received chest physical treatments alone. Treatment failure was defined as the need for cricothyroid "minitracheostomy" or endotracheal intubation, despite treatment. The number of subjects administered bronchoscopy-assisted aspiration during the hospital stay was also compared.
Treatment failure was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the mechanical insufflation-exsufflation group than in the conventional chest physical treatments group (2/11 vs. 10/16 cases). The use of bronchoscopy-assisted aspiration was similar in the two groups (5/11 vs. 6/16 cases). Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation did not produce serious side effects and was well tolerated by all subjects.
Provision of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in combination with standard chest physical treatments may improve the management of airway mucous encumbrance in neuromyopathic patients; its use should be included in the noninvasive approach to treatment of respiratory tract infections with impaired mucous clearance.
研究在标准胸部物理治疗基础上,机械通气-呼气末正压通气作为神经肌肉疾病合并呼吸道感染和气道黏液阻塞患者一线干预措施的疗效。
将11例在重症监护病房接受机械通气-呼气末正压通气和传统胸部物理治疗的连续神经肌肉疾病合并呼吸道感染和气管支气管黏液阻塞患者的短期结局,与16例仅接受胸部物理治疗的历史匹配对照患者的结局进行比较。治疗失败定义为尽管进行了治疗,但仍需要环甲膜“微型气管切开术”或气管插管。还比较了住院期间接受支气管镜辅助抽吸的患者数量。
机械通气-呼气末正压通气组的治疗失败率显著低于传统胸部物理治疗组(2/11对10/16例,P<0.05)。两组支气管镜辅助抽吸的使用情况相似(5/11对6/16例)。机械通气-呼气末正压通气未产生严重副作用,所有受试者耐受性良好。
机械通气-呼气末正压通气联合标准胸部物理治疗可改善神经肌肉病患者气道黏液阻塞的管理;在黏液清除受损的呼吸道感染无创治疗方法中应包括其使用。