中国医科大学学报  2020, Vol. 49 Issue (4): 342-345

文章信息

秦欢, 穆盛田, 郑振
QIN Huan, MU Shengtian, ZHENG Zhen
重症监护室肺癌患者拔管后经鼻高流量氧疗与储氧面罩吸氧有效性的比较
Efficacy of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and oxygen masks in patients with lung cancer in the intensive care unit
中国医科大学学报, 2020, 49(4): 342-345
Journal of China Medical University, 2020, 49(4): 342-345

文章历史

收稿日期:2019-06-28
网络出版时间:2020-04-16 10:32
重症监护室肺癌患者拔管后经鼻高流量氧疗与储氧面罩吸氧有效性的比较
秦欢 , 穆盛田 , 郑振     
中国医科大学肿瘤医院, 辽宁省肿瘤医院重症监护室, 沈阳 110042
摘要目的 比较重症监护室(ICU)肺癌患者拔管后应用经鼻高流量氧疗(HFNC)与储氧面罩吸氧的临床效果。方法 前瞻性分析我院ICU收治的机械通气且符合脱机标准的肺癌患者的临床资料,选取符合纳入标准的62例患者,随机分成HFNC组(A组,n=32)和储氧面罩吸氧组(B组,n=30),分别记录2组患者拔管前及拔管后1 h和12 h的心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、吸入氧浓度、动脉血气分析结果、机械通气时间、再插管的患者数量、ICU住院时间和ICU死亡率。结果 拔管前、拔管后1 h和12 h时2组患者比较,氧合指数的差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。拔管后12 h时A组患者的氧分压和氧合指数高于B组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。A组需要再插管的患者数量较B组少,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。2组患者拔管前、拔管后血流动力学指标无统计学差异,且2组患者ICU住院时间、机械通气时间和ICU死亡率均无统计学差异。结论 ICU肺癌患者拔管后序贯HFNC可获得更高的氧合指数,减少再插管风险,同时保证患者气道湿化水平、舒适度和耐受程度。
关键词肺癌    机械通气    拔管    经鼻高流量氧疗    储氧面罩    
Efficacy of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and oxygen masks in patients with lung cancer in the intensive care unit
Department of Intensive Care Unit, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang 110042, China
Abstract: Objective To compare the efficacies of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) and oxygen masks in patients with lung cancer in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods This prospective study included 62 patients with lung cancer admitted to the ICU who passed the spontaneous breathing trial. The patients were divided into groups A (receiving an HFNC, n=32) and B (receiving an oxygen mask, n=30). Data on heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation, inhaled oxygen concentration, arterial blood gas analysis, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of reintubations required, length of stay in the ICU, and ICU mortality were recorded before as well as 1 and 12 h after extubation. Results A significant difference was noted in PaO2/FiO2 between the two groups before as well as 1 and 12 h after extubation (P < 0.05). PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly higher in group A than in group B 12 h after extubation (P < 0.05). Fewer patients required reintubation in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). No significant difference was noted in hemodynamics, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, and ICU mortality between the two groups. Conclusion HFNC use can raise PaO2/FiO2; reduce the risk of reintubation; and improve airway humidification, comfort, and tolerance for the patients.

根据我国2019年最新的癌症报告,肺癌仍是目前我国男性发病率最高的恶性肿瘤。肺癌患者往往因其本身的肺部病变,在治疗过程中容易出现肺部感染或肺损伤,导致呼吸衰竭,需要机械通气[1]。当患者病情好转后满足脱机指证时,脱机后的序贯氧疗显得尤为重要。脱机后恰当的氧疗不仅可以保证患者足够的氧合,同时可避免重新插管。

经鼻高流量氧疗(high-flow nasal oxygen cannula,HFNC)作为近年新兴的无创氧疗技术,受到呼吸和重症等相关领域的广泛关注。针对危重症患者的临床研究发现,呼吸衰竭急性期应用HFNC可改善患者的氧合,提高患者的生存率、耐受性和舒适度[2-5]。研究[6-7]已证明,拔管后HFNC在特定人群中具有临床益处,如早产儿和接受心脏手术的患者。但有关肺癌患者脱机后应用HFNC的研究较少,所以本研究的目的是比较重症监护室(intensive care unit,ICU)的肺癌患者脱机拔管后应用HFNC与储氧面罩吸氧的临床效果。

1 材料与方法 1.1 研究对象

收集2016年5月至2019年2月间我院ICU收治的机械通气且符合脱机标准的95例肺癌患者的临床资料,其中62例符合纳入标准。纳入标准:年龄≥ 18周岁且明确诊断为肺部肿瘤的患者;入室后行机械通气治疗且通气时间≥ 24 h,经过自主呼吸试验后满足撤机指证的患者。排除标准:血流动力学不稳定、神志不清、不能配合治疗、拔管前死亡或在拔管前接受气管切开术的患者。拔管后再插管定义为拔管后24 h内因呼吸肌疲劳、心理不适或无法清除气道分泌物而需再次插管。记录患者的基本资料,包括年龄、性别、诊断、急性生理与慢性健康(acute physiology and chronic health evaluation,APACHE) Ⅱ评分、序贯器官衰竭(sequential organ failure assessment,SOFA)评分。

1.2 研究方法

采用前瞻性研究,随机将患者分为2组,A组接受HFNC (n = 32),B组接受储氧面罩治疗(n = 30)。A组拔管后立即应用HFNC向患者输送湿化温热氧气,调整流速和氧浓度,保持血氧饱和度 > 90%。B组拔管后应用储氧面罩向患者输送最大10~15 L/min的氧气,保持血氧饱和度 > 90%。

1.3 数据采集

主要采集的数据为拔管前、拔管后1 h和12 h的心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、吸入氧浓度,采集动脉血气并记录pH值、氧分压、二氧化碳分压。记录机械通气时间、再插管的患者数量、ICU住院时间、ICU死亡率。

1.4 统计学分析

采用SPSS 18.0统计学软件进行分析,计量资料以x±s表示,组间比较采用成组t检验,组内两两比较采用配对t检验,计数资料以率(%)表示,组间比较采用χ2检验。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 一般资料的比较

2组患者比较,年龄、性别、APACHE Ⅱ评分和SOFA评分均无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。见表 1

表 1 2组患者一般资料的比较 Tab.1 Comparison of general data between the two groups
Group n Male/female Age (year) APACHE Ⅱ SOFA
A 32 16/16 60.4±13.6 18.12±7.65 12.37±5.61
B 30 14/16 57.4±12.9 16.47±6.56 11.47±4.85

2.2 采集数据的比较

2.2.1 心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度和吸入氧浓度的比较

2组患者拔管后1 h与拔管前比较,吸入氧浓度均升高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),其余组内比较均无统计学差异。2组患者比较,拔管前和拔管后心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度和吸入氧浓度均无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。见表 2

表 2 2组患者拔管前后心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、吸入氧浓度的比较 Tab.2 Comparison of heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and fraction of inspired oxygen before and after extubation between the two groups
Group HR (beats/min) MAP (mmHg) RR (beats/min) SpO2 (%) FiO2 (%)
A
  Before extubation 97.25±16.22 80.91±11.47 21.44±5.33 98.91±1.42 40.00±0.00
 s1 h after extubation 94.69±15.03 79.19±11.27 20.53±5.33 97.56±1.62 47.19±8.611)
B
  89.90±18.81 79.77±13.22 18.37±5.15 98.36±1.80 40.00±0.00
  1 h after extubation 86.10±17.49 79.33±12.50 18.76±4.89 97.23±2.34 48.02±8.091)
1) P < 0.05 vs before extubation within the same group. HR,heart rate;MAP,mean arterial pressure;RR,respiratory rate;SpO2,oxygen saturation;FiO2,fraction of inspired oxygen.

2.2.2 血气分析结果的比较

A组中,拔管后1 h、12 h与拔管前比较,氧合指数降低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),但pH值、氧分压和二氧化碳分压无统计学差异;拔管后1 h与拔管后12 h比较,氧分压、二氧化碳分压和氧合指数无统计学差异。B组中,拔管后1 h、12 h与拔管前比较,氧分压和氧合指数均降低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),但pH值和二氧化碳分压无统计学差异;拔管后12 h与拔管后1 h比较,氧分压下降,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。

拔管后12 h,A组患者的氧分压和氧合指数均高于B组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),但pH值和二氧化碳分压无统计学差异。拔管前和拔管后1 h,2组比较无统计学差异。见表 3

表 3 2组患者拔管前后血气分析结果的比较 Tab.3 Comparison of blood gas analysis results before and after extubation between the two groups
Group pH PaO2 (mmHg) PaCO2 (mmHg) PaO2/FiO2
A
  Before extubation 7.38±0.28 98.78±15.05 39.62±3.67 246.95±37.65
  1 h after extubation 7.37±0.27 92.43±10.09 39.68±3.56 204.12±50.271)
  12 h after extubation 7.38±0.03 90.65±11.223) 39.68±3.63 207.54±60.961),3)
B
  Before extubation 7.39±0.04 99.30±9.35 39.60±2.42 248.25±23.38
  1 h after extubation 7.39±0.04 90.90±8.951) 39.13±2.23 195.11±39.951)
  12 h after extubation 7.38±0.04 84.80±10.721),2) 39.43±3.19 179.87±51.581)
1) P < 0.05 vs before extubation within the same group;2) P < 0.05 vs 1 h after extubation within the same group;3) P < 0.05 vs group B at the same time point. PaO2,partial pressure of oxygen;PaCO2,partial pressure of carbon dioxide;PaO2/FiO2,oxygenation index.

2.2.3 结局的比较

A组再插管1例(3.13%),B组再插管4例(13.33%),2组比较再插管率有统计学差异(P < 0.05),但2组患者的ICU死亡率、ICU住院时间、机械通气时间均无统计学差异。见表 4

表 4 2组患者结局的比较 Tab.4 Comparison of outcomes between the two groups
Group n Length of stay in the ICU (d) Duration of mechanical ventilation (d) Reintubation (%) ICU mortality (%)
A 32 13.96±8.92 12.75±7.95 3.131) 3.13
B 30 13.53±9.93 12.10±7.89 13.33 6.67
1) P < 0.05 vs group B.

3 讨论

肺癌作为目前严重危害公共健康安全的一种疾病,在中国发病率很高,而呼吸衰竭为肺癌患者的一种常见并发症,严重威胁患者生命[1]。所以,肺癌患者成功脱机后如何避免呼吸衰竭和再次插管尤为重要。

HFNC作为近年新兴的一种无创吸氧装置,目前被临床广泛应用。与传统鼻导管和面罩的低流量吸氧不同,HFNC一方面可以通过使用加热和加湿的氧气来保持黏膜功能和减少气管分泌物[8-9],另一方面不但可以清除咽部死腔,降低鼻咽阻力,还能产生呼气末正压,减少气道塌陷,并且能够提供恒定、精确的吸入氧浓度,甚至可达100%的氧浓度[3]。目前已有大量研究[10-16]发现,HFNC在急性呼吸衰竭或低氧血症、低免疫患者呼吸衰竭、脱离呼吸机后的序贯治疗、手术后的呼吸衰竭、气管插管前的预充氧、纤维支气管镜治疗过程中的氧疗中,均能发挥重要作用。本研究对比了ICU肺癌患者脱机后应用HFNC与储氧面罩吸氧的临床效果。

本研究表明,拔管后应用HFNC与储氧面罩吸氧的2组肺癌患者,拔管前后2组患者的心率、平均动脉压、呼吸频率和血氧饱和度等方面均无统计学差异。HFNC组患者拔管后仅氧合指数较拔管前有所下降;储氧面罩吸氧组患者拔管后氧分压和氧合指数均较拔管前明显下降,并且随着拔管时间的延长,氧分压逐渐下降,拔管后12 h氧分压较拔管后1 h明显降低,差异有统计学意义;HFNC组患者拔管后氧分压无明显改变。同时,比较2组患者12 h的氧分压和氧合指数,HFNC组均明显高于储氧面罩吸氧组。进一步的研究结果还发现,HFNC组患者的再插管率明显低于储氧面罩吸氧组。由此可见,对于ICU肺癌患者,脱机拔管后立即序贯HFNC优于传统储氧面罩吸氧,尽管2组患者的ICU住院时间、机械通气时间和ICU死亡率无统计学差异。之前也有研究[13]发现,对于肺癌术后患者,HFNC与传统面罩或鼻导管吸氧相比,可以降低低氧血症的发生率,再插管数量也明显低于对照组,与本研究结果相似。除此之外,相比于无创呼吸机辅助通气[17],使用HFNC期间患者可以不间断地进食或说话,不会出现因无创面罩吸氧带来的鼻面部压痛和皮肤破溃等不适,一定程度上提高了患者的舒适度,减轻了患者的恐惧与焦虑。本研究中所有使用HFNC的患者均无上述不适主诉。

综上所述,对于ICU的肺癌患者,相比传统的储氧面罩吸氧,脱机拔管后序贯HFNC是一种更有效且有益的供氧方法。HFNC可以减少患者再插管的风险,改善患者拔管后的氧合指数,并且保证患者气道湿化水平、舒适度和耐受程度。但本研究的入组病例偏少,今后有待于更大规模的临床研究来进一步证实HFNC对肺癌患者的优势。

参考文献
[1]
LEDUC C, ANTONI D, CHARLOUX A, et al. Comorbidities in the management of patients with lung cancer[J]. Eur Respir J, 2017, 49(3): 1601721. DOI:10.1183/13993003.01721-2016
[2]
FRAT JP, THILLE AW, MERCAT A, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure[J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 372(23): 2185-2196. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1503326
[3]
RICARD JD. High-flow nasal oxygen in acute respiratory failure[J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2012, 78(7): 836-841.
[4]
ROCA O, RIERA J, TORRES F, et al. High-flow oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure[J]. Respir Care, 2010, 55(4): 408-413.
[5]
MAGGIORE SM, IDONE FA, VASCHETTO R, et al. Nasal high-flow versus Venturi mask oxygen therapy after extubation:effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2014, 190(3): 282-288. DOI:10.1164/rccm.201402-0364OC
[6]
STÉPHAN F, BARRUCAND B, PETIT P, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemic patients after cardiothoracic surgery:a randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2015, 313(23): 2331-2339. DOI:10.1001/jama.2015.5213
[7]
MANLEY BJ, OWEN LS, DOYLE LW, et al. High-flow nasal cannulae in very preterm infants after extubation[J]. N Engl J Med, 2013, 369(15): 1425-1433. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1300071
[8]
CUQUEMELLE E, PHAM T, PAPON JF, et al. Heated and humidified high-flow oxygen therapy reduces discomfort during hypoxemic respiratory failure[J]. Respir Care, 2012, 57(10): 1571-1577. DOI:10.4187/respcare.01681
[9]
KANG BJ, KOH Y, LIM CM, et al. Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41(4): 623-632. DOI:10.1007/s00134-015-3693-5
[10]
PARKE RL, MCGUINNESS SP, ECCLESTON ML. A preliminary randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness of nasal high-flow oxygen in intensive care patients[J]. Respir Care, 2011, 56(3): 265-270. DOI:10.4187/respcare.00801
[11]
JONES PG, KAMONA S, DORAN O, et al. Randomized controlled trial of humidified high-flow nasal oxygen for acute respiratory distress in the emergency department:the HOT-ER study[J]. Respir Care, 2016, 61(3): 291-299. DOI:10.4187/respcare.04252
[12]
HARADA K, KUROSAWA S, HINO Y, et al. Clinical utility of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure in patients with hematological disease[J]. Springer Plus, 2016, 5: 512. DOI:10.1186/s40064-016-2161-1
[13]
YU Y, QIAN X, LIU C, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy for patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy after extubation[J]. Can Respir J, 2017, 2017: 7894631. DOI:10.1155/2017/7894631
[14]
PARKE R, MCGUINNESS S, DIXON R, et al. Open-label, phase Ⅱ study of routine high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cardiac surgical patients[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2013, 111(6): 925-931. DOI:10.1093/bja/aet262
[15]
LA COMBE B, MESSIKA J, LABBÉ V, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen for bronchoalveolar lavage in acute respiratory failure patients[J]. Eur Respir J, 2016, 47(4): 1283-1286. DOI:10.1183/13993003.01883-2015
[16]
MIGUEL-MONTANES R, HAJAGE D, MESSIKA J, et al. Use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy to prevent desaturation during tracheal intubation of intensive care patients with mild-to-moderate hypoxemia[J]. Crit Care Med, 2015, 43(3): 574-583. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000743
[17]
RENDA T, CORRADO A, ISKANDAR G, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy in intensive care and anaesthesia[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2018, 120(1): 18-27. DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.010