Clinical observation of treatment used for expiration control device with mask for chronic obstructive pul-monary disease
10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2017.13.026
- VernacularTitle:带面罩的呼气控制装置治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病的临床观察
- Author:
Bin LIU
;
Jianwen QIN
;
Wenquan LI
- Keywords:
chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases;
mask;
extrinsic positive end-expiratory pres-sure;
pursed-lip breathing;
ventilation function
- From:
The Journal of Practical Medicine
2017;33(13):2169-2173
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To test the clinical effects of the expiration control device with mask in the treat-ment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This device developed by the author. Methods A total of 102 pa-tients were treated by the device. Among them ,50 patients received positive end-expiratory pressure and 52 with expiratory flow retard and blocked function. Differences in carbon dioxide partial pressure(PaCO2),oxygen partial pressure(PaO2)and pH of the arterial blood gas analysis were compared ,as well as differences in forced vital ca-pacity(FVC),forced expiratory volume for1 sec(FEV1),tidal volume(VT)of pulmonary function before and af-ter treatment. Results (1) In the positive end-expiratory pressure group ,there were significant differences of FVC,FEV1 and VT before and after treatment(2.95 ± 0.32)L vs(3.22 ± 0.35)L,(1.88 ± 0.17)L vs(2.00 ± 0.15)L,(335.28 ± 43.59)mL vs(364.64 ± 44.28)mL,(P<0.01)differences of PaCO2,PaO2 and pH before and after treatment had statistical significance(50.42 ± 4.77)mmHg vs(48.42 ± 3.76)mmHg,(65.42 ± 4.60)mmHg vs (68.50 ± 4.69)mmHg,(7.35 ± 0.030)vs(7.37 ± 0.037)(P<0.05).(2)In the expiratory flow retard and blocked group,differences of FVC,FEV1andVT before and after treatment had statistical significance(2.93 ± 0.22)L vs (3.10 ± 0.27)L,(1.83 ± 0.14)L vs(1.91 ± 0.16)L,(335.48 ± 44.16)mL vs(362.46 ± 38.66)mL(P<0.05), differences of PaCO2,PaO2 and pH before and after treatment had statistical significance(52.39 ± 3.37)mmHg vs (50.06 ± 3.92)mmHg,(68.05 ± 3.80)mmHg vs(68.99 ± 4.57)mmHg,(7.34 ± 0.035)vs(7.37 ± 0.036)(P<0.05). Conclusion This device can improve the ventilation function in patients with COPD. It is easy to use ,safe and effective,with high clinical application value.
