2019冠状病毒病患者头盔接口使用流量计与机械呼吸机无创通气效果的比较对照和随机临床试验。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Archives of Medical Science Pub Date : 2024-05-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5114/aoms/183947
Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio
{"title":"2019冠状病毒病患者头盔接口使用流量计与机械呼吸机无创通气效果的比较对照和随机临床试验。","authors":"Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio","doi":"10.5114/aoms/183947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (<i>p</i> = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8278,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Medical Science","volume":"20 5","pages":"1538-1546"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11623150/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/aoms/183947\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (<i>p</i> = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"1538-1546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11623150/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/183947\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/183947","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在比较两种无创机械通气方法对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2)患者的有效性——使用带有流量计和呼气末正压阀的头盔接口与传统机械呼吸机。材料与方法:我们在某私立专科医院进行了100例成人SARS-CoV-2患者的单中心随机临床试验。参与者被随机分为两组:一组使用带有流量计和呼气末正压阀的头盔接口,另一组使用常规机械通气。我们的研究包括受试者选择、血气分析、呼吸频率评估、外周血氧饱和度、改良博格量表评分和视觉模拟量表。结果:机械通气组插管率为54.3%,头盔接口带流量计组和呼气末正压阀组插管率为46.8%,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.37)。此外,头盔组的平均使用时间(3.4±1.6天)短于机械通气组(4.0±1.9天)。头盔组的平均住院时间(15.9±7.9 d)短于机械通气组(17.1±9.5 d)。结论:本单中心随机临床试验发现两种无创通气方法之间无统计学差异。对临床实践的启示:使用头盔接口与流量计和呼气末正压阀可以简化设备的安装,潜在地减少了插管的需要,使其成为护士和物理治疗师在日常临床实践中的宝贵工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.

Material and methods: We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.

Results: The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).

Conclusions: This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.

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
Archives of Medical Science
Archives of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
139
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Medical Science (AMS) publishes high quality original articles and reviews of recognized scientists that deal with all scientific medicine. AMS opens the possibilities for young, capable scientists. The journal would like to give them a chance to have a publication following matter-of-fact, professional review by outstanding, famous medical scientists. Thanks to that they will have an opportunity to present their study results and/or receive useful advice about the mistakes they have made so far. The second equally important aim is a presentation of review manuscripts of recognized scientists about the educational capacity, in order that young scientists, often at the beginning of their scientific carrier, could constantly deepen their medical knowledge and be up-to-date with current guidelines and trends in world-wide medicine. The fact that our educational articles are written by world-famous scientists determines their innovation and the highest quality.
×
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