Suppr超能文献

机械通气患者中振动筛孔雾化器与定量吸入器的比较

Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer Compared With Metered-Dose Inhaler in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

作者信息

Dubosky Meagan N, Chen Yi-Fan, Henriksen Mary E, Vines David L

机构信息

Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.

出版信息

Respir Care. 2017 Apr;62(4):391-395. doi: 10.4187/respcare.04823. Epub 2017 Jan 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The impact of various aerosol delivery devices on patient outcomes during mechanical ventilation is unknown. If one method of delivery results in a higher ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate than another, multiple patient outcomes may be affected. This study aimed to determine whether there was a difference in VAP occurrence and patient outcomes (days receiving ventilation and in-hospital mortality) between the vibrating mesh nebulizer (AeroNeb Solo) and the metered-dose inhaler (MDI).

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed medical records for all mechanically ventilated, adult patients with an order for aerosol treatment from August 2011 to August 2013. The hospital converted from MDI to vibrating mesh nebulizers in August 2012, and data were gathered 1 y before/after conversion. Excluded were patients with a tracheostomy, patients who were mechanically ventilated for <24 h, patients who received a combination of nebulizer and MDI treatments, or patients who were re-intubated.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-eight subjects were included. Forty-eight (21%) received treatment with an MDI, and 180 (79%) were treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer. Descriptive data did not significantly differ for age or APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) scores between the groups but did for sex ( = .03). Difference in median days receiving ventilation for the MDI (5 d, interquartile range 3.0-8.5 d) and the vibrating mesh nebulizer (6 d, interquartile range 4.0-10.0 d) was not statistically significant. No correlation was found between the use of either device and the primary outcomes of VAP and in-hospital mortality. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the number of days receiving ventilation increased the odds of VAP (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% CI 1.14-1.49, < .001) and mortality (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21, = .002). Higher APACHE II scores increased the odds of mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.001-1.092, = .044).

CONCLUSION

We found no association between an MDI or vibrating mesh nebulizer and our primary outcomes, days receiving ventilation, in-hospital mortality, or VAP, in mechanically ventilated subjects.

摘要

背景

各种气雾剂输送装置对机械通气期间患者预后的影响尚不清楚。如果一种输送方法导致呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率高于另一种方法,可能会影响多个患者预后。本研究旨在确定振动网式雾化器(AeroNeb Solo)和定量吸入器(MDI)在VAP发生率及患者预后(通气天数和院内死亡率)方面是否存在差异。

方法

这项回顾性研究查阅了2011年8月至2013年8月所有接受机械通气且有气雾剂治疗医嘱的成年患者的病历。该医院于2012年8月从MDI转换为振动网式雾化器,并在转换前后各1年收集数据。排除气管切开患者以及机械通气时间<24小时、接受雾化器和MDI联合治疗或再次插管的患者。

结果

纳入228名受试者。48名(21%)接受MDI治疗,180名(79%)接受振动网式雾化器治疗。两组间年龄或急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)评分的描述性数据无显著差异,但性别有差异(P = 0.03)。MDI组通气天数中位数为5天(四分位间距3.0 - 8.5天),振动网式雾化器组为6天(四分位间距4.0 - 10.0天),差异无统计学意义。未发现使用任何一种装置与VAP及院内死亡率的主要结局之间存在相关性。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,通气天数增加了发生VAP的几率(优势比[OR] 1.3,95%置信区间1.14 - 1.49,P < 0.001)和死亡率(OR 1.12,95%置信区间1.04 - 1.21,P = 0.002)。较高的APACHE II评分增加了死亡几率(OR 1.05,95%置信区间1.001 - 1.092,P = 0.044)。

结论

我们发现,在机械通气受试者中,MDI或振动网式雾化器与我们的主要结局(通气天数、院内死亡率或VAP)之间无关联。

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