Search

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome of newborn. Methods: 94 cases of newborn with respiratory distress syndrome in our hospital from June 2014 to June 2015 were selected and randomly divided into two groups with 47 cases in each group, the control group was treated by Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and the experiment group 47 cases was treated by nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. The arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen inhalation time, hospital stay, clinical curative effect and complication rate were compared between two groups before and after treatment. Results: After treatment, the clinical efficacy of experiment group was significantly better than that of the control group. The level of pH and PCn in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). the PaC'O, level was lower than the control group (P<0.05), the time of oxygen inhalation and the length of stay in hospital were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The success rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, the treatment failure rate was lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: The clinical efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation were better than the nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]