Alexander G, Gerhardt T, Bancalari E
Am J Dis Child. 1979 Nov;133(11):1156-9. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1979.02130110064012.
The effectiveness of continuous negative pressure (CNP) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of hyaline membrane disease and the incidence of complications were compared in 36 preterm infants randomly treated with CNP or nasal CPAP. Both methods of treatment were effective in increasing PaO2 and allowing a decrease in inspired O2 concentration. The time required with mechanical assistance and with an O2 concentration of more than 40% was equal in both groups. In the CNP group, four infants required mechanical ventilation because of clinical deterioration whereas in the nasal CPAP group, seven needed this type of therapy. Three infants in each group had extraalveolar air, and two patients in each group died. The results suggest that both methods of applying continuous distending airway pressure are effective. Nasal CPAP has the advantages of easier application and better access to the infant.
对36例随机接受持续负压(CNP)或经鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗的早产儿,比较了CNP和经鼻CPAP治疗透明膜病的有效性及并发症发生率。两种治疗方法均能有效提高动脉血氧分压(PaO2)并降低吸入氧浓度。两组患儿机械辅助通气时间及吸氧浓度超过40%的时间相等。CNP组有4例患儿因临床病情恶化需要机械通气,而经鼻CPAP组有7例需要此类治疗。每组有3例患儿出现肺泡外气体,每组有2例患儿死亡。结果表明,两种应用持续气道扩张压的方法均有效。经鼻CPAP具有应用更简便、更便于接触患儿的优点。