Abstract: Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of two modes as a primary mode of ventilation in premature infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods From January 2012 to December 2014,80 preterm infants with RDS who received in our hospital were randomly divided into two groups based on the primary mode of ventilation:nasal continuous positive airway pressure(NCPAP,n=40),bi-level positive airway pressure(SiPAP,n=40).The success rate of treatment and the incidence of different complications were compared. Results 1)Significantly,more infants in the SiPAP group remained extubated compared with those in the NCPAP group,whereas the success rate in SiPAP group was higher in NCPAP group(52% vs 26%,P<0.05).2)No significant difference in the complication was found between two groups(P>0.05). Conclusion The effect of nasal SiPAP for preterm infants with RDS appears to have greater advantage than that of NCPAP obviously,and without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

Key words: nasal continuous positive airway pressure, bi-level positive airway pressure, premature, respiratory distress syndrome, newborn

摘要： 目的 比较两组不同正压通气方式在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征(neonatal respiratory distress syndrome,RDS)初始治疗中的应用。方法 2012年1月-2014年12月在本院新生儿科住院的符合入选标准的早产儿80例,按照随机数字表随机分为两组,分别给予经鼻持续气道正压通气(nasal continuous positive airway pressure,NCPAP)40例,双相经鼻持续气道正压通气(bi-level positive airway pressure,SiPAP)40例。比较两组正压通气治疗成功率,并发症率。结果 1)需有创呼吸支持SiPAP组(26%)明显低于NCPAP组(52%),治疗成功率SiPAP组高于NCPAP组(P＜0.05);2)两组并发症发病率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。结论 SiPAP治疗RDS较NCPAP疗效好,且未增加不良反应发生率。

关键词: 经鼻持续气道正压通气, 双相经鼻持续气道正压通气, 早产, 呼吸窘迫综合征, 新生儿