Clinical effect of noninvasive ventilation and transnasal high flow oxygen therapy in COPD with type Ⅱ respiratory failure

陈颖,万久贺,王红,郭晓华,祝振忠
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn131368-20200414-00296
2020-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated with type Ⅱ respiratory failure.Methods:A total of 120 COPD patients with type Ⅱ respiratory failure admitted in Peking University Shougang Hospital from April 2017 to April 2018 were randomly divided into High-flow Nasal Cannula(HFNC) group and noninvasive ventilation group with 60 cases each.In HFNC group, 2 cases were lost after discharge, and 58 cases finally entered the statistical analysis.The HFNC group was treated with conventional comprehensive treatment + HFNC, and the noninvasive ventilation group was treated with conventional comprehensive treatment + noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.The oxygen saturation, (SpO 2), partial pressure ofcarbon dioxide(PaO 2), partial pressure ofcarbon dioxide (PaCO 2), respiratoryrate(RR), heart rate(HR), arterial pH value, intubation rate, treatment failure rate, mortality rate, incidence of skin lesions on nose and face, total ventilation time, ICU hospitalization time, total hospitalization time and airway nursing intervention times were compared between the two groups. Results:There was no significant difference in SpO 2, PaO 2, PaCO 2, RR, HR and pH value of arterial blood between the two groups ( P>0.05). After 2 hours and 3 days of treatment, SpO 2, PaO 2 and pH value of arterial blood in the two groups were higher than that in the admission, and PaCO 2, RR and HR were lower than that in the admission ( P<0.05). After 2 hours and 3 days of treatment, SpO 2, PaO 2, arterial pH in HFNC group were higher than that in noninvasive ventilation group, while PaCO 2, RR and HR were lower than that in noninvasive ventilation group ( P<0.05). The intubation rate and the skin damage rate of nose and face in hfnc group were 12.07% and 5.17%, respectively, which were lower than those in noninvasive ventilation group 26.67% and 18.33% ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in treatment failure rate and mortality between the two groups ( P>0.05). The ventilation time, ICU hospitalization time, total hospitalization time and airway nursing intervention times in hfnc group were lower than those in noninvasive ventilation group ( P<0.05). Conclusions:Can effectively relieve the clinical symptoms of COPD patients with type Ⅱ respiratory failure, improve their oxygenation status, reduce the intubation rate, shorten the length of stay, and have higher comfort, which is beneficial to reduce the skin lesions of nose and face, to the tolerance of patients, and to the acceptance of patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?