慢性阻塞性肺病治疗中两种气动雾化吸入器改良前后的对比
| 作者: |
1李桂兰,
2刘彬,
1刘磊
1 哈尔滨医科大学附属第四医院呼吸内科，哈尔滨 150001 2 哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院呼吸内科，哈尔滨 150001 |
| 通讯: |
刘磊
Email: liulei1983122500@163.com |
| DOI: | 10.3978/j.issn.2095-6959.2018.03.011 |
| 基金: | 黑龙江省卫生和计划生育委员会基金(2017-154)。 |
摘要
目的：对比慢性阻塞性肺疾病(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease，COPD)治疗中两种气动雾化吸入器改良前后的雾化效果。方法：A组采用YZB/GEM1058-2009型医用雾化器，应用聚丙烯微孔滤膜后对比。B组采用DNA100医用雾化器，应用聚丙烯微孔滤膜后对比。两型雾化器均连接医院中心供氧系统。雾化器的压力释放口连接活性碳粒，以吸附浪费药物。结果：雾化药物净重(8.7984±0.0385) g。改良前每次雾化浪费药物量：A组(6.9998±0.004) g，B组(7.6546±0.0029) g，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；每次雾化药物浪费率：A组79.558%，B组87%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；每次雾化未形成雾的药量：A组(0.9081±0.3343) g，B组(2.1574±0.1654) g，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；每次雾化未形成雾的药量比率：A组10.32%，B组24.52%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。改良前后A组每次雾化浪费药物量：(6.9998±0.004) g vs (3.1032±0.025) g，差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)；每次雾化浪费药物率：79.558% vs 35.27%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.002)。B组每次雾化浪费药物量：(7.6546±0.0029) g vs (3.7015±0.0339) g，差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)；每次雾化浪费药物率：87% vs 42.07%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.005)。结论：两种气动雾化吸入器均浪费较多药物，而YZB/GEM1058-2009型优于DNA100雾化吸入器；应用聚丙烯微孔滤膜后，取得明显效果。
关键词：
气动雾化吸入器；聚丙烯微孔滤膜；药物浪费
Comparison of two types of pneumatic atomizer in the pre- and post-treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CorrespondingAuthor: LIU Lei Email: liulei1983122500@163.com
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2095-6959.2018.03.011
Foundation: This work was supported by Heilongjiang Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning, China (2017-154).
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of two kinds of pneumatic nebulizer inhalation on the clinical treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) pre- and post-treatment. Methods: Group A was treated with YZB/GEM1058-2009 type medical nebulizer and compared with polypropylene microporous membrane. Group B was treated with DNA100 medical nebulizer and compared with polypropylene microporous membrane. Two types of atomizer were connected to central oxygen supply system in hospital. The pressure release port of the atomizer was connected with activated carbon particles to adsorb waste drugs. Results: Aerosolized drugs average net weight (8.7984±0.0385) g. Pre-treatment, the average amount of atomization drug waste: Group A was (6.9998±0.004) g, Group B was (7.6546±0.0029) g, and there were significant differences (P<0.05); the average aerosol drug waste rate: Group A was 79.558%, Group B was 87%, and there were significant differences (P<0.05); the average aerosol fog is not formed dosage: Group A was (0.9081±0.3343) g, Group B was (2.1574±0.1654) g, and there were significant differences (P<0.05); the average dose not form fog atomization rate: Group A was 10.32%, Group B was 24.52%, and there were significant difference (P<0.05). Pre- and post-treatment, Group A: the average amount of drugs: (6.9998±0.004) g vs (3.1032±0.025) g, there were significant difference (P<0.001); the average aerosol drug waste rate: 79.558% vs 35.27%, there were significant difference (P<0.002). Group B: the average amount of drug waste per atomization: (7.6546±0.0029) g vs (3.7015±0.0339) g, there were significant difference (P<0.001); average drug waste rate of each atomization: 87% vs 42.07%, there were significant difference (P<0.005). Conclusion: Two types of pneumatic nebulizer inhalation waste too much medicine, YZB/GEM1058-2009 significantly better than DNA100 nebulizer. It has achieved remarkable results after the application of polypropylene microporous membrane.
Keywords：
pneumatic nebulizer; polypropylene microporous membrane; drug waste