Cherniack R M, Svanhill E
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1976 Jun;113(6):721-8. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1976.113.6.721.
The long-term use of intermittent positive-pressure breathing (IPPB) to deliver bronchodilator was compared to delivery by air compressor in 88 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were in the home care program. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of number of hospital admissions, days spent in hospital, or mortality. The deterioration in ventilatory function was the same in both groups, althouth the patients receiving IPPB appeared to have developed greater hyperinflation. The data suggest that there is little evidence to support the long-term use of IPPB in the therapy of most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
在88名接受家庭护理计划的慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者中,比较了长期使用间歇性正压通气(IPPB)输送支气管扩张剂与通过空气压缩机输送支气管扩张剂的效果。两组在住院次数、住院天数或死亡率方面没有差异。两组通气功能的恶化情况相同,尽管接受IPPB治疗的患者似乎出现了更严重的肺过度充气。数据表明,几乎没有证据支持在大多数慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的治疗中长期使用IPPB。