新生儿鼻持续气道正压通气的尖头还是面罩:哪个更舒适?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING
Baran Cengiz Arcagok, Hulya Bilgen, Asli Memisoglu, Hulya Ozdemir, Sibel Sakarya, Eren Ozek
{"title":"新生儿鼻持续气道正压通气的尖头还是面罩:哪个更舒适?","authors":"Baran Cengiz Arcagok, Hulya Bilgen, Asli Memisoglu, Hulya Ozdemir, Sibel Sakarya, Eren Ozek","doi":"10.1097/JPN.0000000000000782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a common mode of respiratory support in neonatal intensive care units. Our objective was to compare whether NCPAP given with nasal prongs compared with a nasal mask reduces the pain scores in preterm infants with respiratory distress.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preterm infants on NCPAP due to respiratory distress were included in the study. All infants received NCPAP via the Infant Flow SiPAP. The COVERS pain scale was used to score the infants' pain. Each infant was studied alternating between nasal prongs and a nasal mask. Heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and transcutaneous CO2 (tcCO2) were monitored. Blood pressure and the infants' pain scores were determined every 30 minutes and the average of measurements was taken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range) values of pain scores, respiratory rates, oxygen saturations, tcCO2 levels, and systolic blood pressures differed significantly and favored the nasal mask.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that continuous positive airway pressure via a nasal mask leads to a significant reduction in pain scores without altering the respiratory parameters of babies. On the basis of this study, it is possible to conclude that NCPAP applied via nasal mask may be a good alternative to NCPAP applied via nasal prongs.</p>","PeriodicalId":54773,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prongs or Mask for Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Neonates: Which One Is More Comfortable?\",\"authors\":\"Baran Cengiz Arcagok, Hulya Bilgen, Asli Memisoglu, Hulya Ozdemir, Sibel Sakarya, Eren Ozek\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JPN.0000000000000782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a common mode of respiratory support in neonatal intensive care units. Our objective was to compare whether NCPAP given with nasal prongs compared with a nasal mask reduces the pain scores in preterm infants with respiratory distress.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preterm infants on NCPAP due to respiratory distress were included in the study. All infants received NCPAP via the Infant Flow SiPAP. The COVERS pain scale was used to score the infants' pain. Each infant was studied alternating between nasal prongs and a nasal mask. Heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and transcutaneous CO2 (tcCO2) were monitored. Blood pressure and the infants' pain scores were determined every 30 minutes and the average of measurements was taken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range) values of pain scores, respiratory rates, oxygen saturations, tcCO2 levels, and systolic blood pressures differed significantly and favored the nasal mask.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that continuous positive airway pressure via a nasal mask leads to a significant reduction in pain scores without altering the respiratory parameters of babies. On the basis of this study, it is possible to conclude that NCPAP applied via nasal mask may be a good alternative to NCPAP applied via nasal prongs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000782\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000782","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)是新生儿重症监护病房常见的呼吸支持模式。我们的目的是比较鼻尖与鼻罩是否能降低呼吸窘迫早产儿的疼痛评分。方法:选取因呼吸窘迫而接受NCPAP治疗的早产儿为研究对象。所有婴儿均通过婴儿流SiPAP接受NCPAP。采用COVERS疼痛量表对婴儿的疼痛进行评分。每个婴儿交替使用鼻尖和鼻罩进行研究。监测心率、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、经皮CO2 (tcCO2)。每30分钟测量一次血压和婴儿疼痛评分,并取平均值。结果:疼痛评分、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、tcCO2水平和收缩压的中位数(四分位数范围)差异显著,且对鼻罩有利。结论:本研究表明,通过鼻罩持续气道正压可在不改变婴儿呼吸参数的情况下显著降低疼痛评分。在本研究的基础上,可以得出结论,通过鼻罩应用的NCPAP可能是通过鼻尖应用的NCPAP的良好替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prongs or Mask for Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Neonates: Which One Is More Comfortable?

Background: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a common mode of respiratory support in neonatal intensive care units. Our objective was to compare whether NCPAP given with nasal prongs compared with a nasal mask reduces the pain scores in preterm infants with respiratory distress.

Methods: Preterm infants on NCPAP due to respiratory distress were included in the study. All infants received NCPAP via the Infant Flow SiPAP. The COVERS pain scale was used to score the infants' pain. Each infant was studied alternating between nasal prongs and a nasal mask. Heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and transcutaneous CO2 (tcCO2) were monitored. Blood pressure and the infants' pain scores were determined every 30 minutes and the average of measurements was taken.

Results: The median (interquartile range) values of pain scores, respiratory rates, oxygen saturations, tcCO2 levels, and systolic blood pressures differed significantly and favored the nasal mask.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that continuous positive airway pressure via a nasal mask leads to a significant reduction in pain scores without altering the respiratory parameters of babies. On the basis of this study, it is possible to conclude that NCPAP applied via nasal mask may be a good alternative to NCPAP applied via nasal prongs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
147
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing (JPNN) strives to advance the practice of evidence-based perinatal and neonatal nursing through peer-reviewed articles in a topic-oriented format. Each issue features scholarly manuscripts, continuing education options, and columns on expert opinions, legal and risk management, and education resources. The perinatal focus of JPNN centers around labor and delivery and intrapartum services specifically and overall perinatal services broadly. The neonatal focus emphasizes neonatal intensive care and includes the spectrum of neonatal and infant care outcomes. Featured articles for JPNN include evidence-based reviews, innovative clinical programs and projects, clinical updates and education and research-related articles appropriate for registered and advanced practice nurses. The primary objective of The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing is to provide practicing nurses with useful information on perinatal and neonatal nursing. Each issue is PEER REVIEWED and will feature one topic, to be covered in depth. JPNN is a refereed journal. All manuscripts submitted for publication are peer reviewed by a minimum of three members of the editorial board. Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of accuracy and relevance of content, fit with the journal purpose and upcoming issue topics, and writing style. Both clinical and research manuscripts applicable to perinatal and neonatal care are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信