| Literature DB >> 34594484 |
Haiwang Sha1, Fen He1.
Abstract
Respiratory failure refers to pulmonary ventilation and ventilatory dysfunction caused by various reasons, which makes the patient unable to maintain the gas exchange required for stillness and causes a series of pathophysiological changes and corresponding clinical manifestations. In order to solve the problem of respiratory failure in critically ill patients, it is of great significance to analyze the role of microprocessor-based emergency ventilator in the treatment of critically ill patients. This article aims to study the role of microprocessor-based emergency ventilator in the treatment of critically ill patients. This paper presents the key technology based on the ARM11 processor. A breathing motion model is detected and established through a ventilator. The research objects are mainly divided into group A and group B. By comparing the two groups of emergency ventilator ventilation, it can effectively prevent the increase in respiratory muscle fatigue, reduce oxygen consumption, improve the patient's ventilation function and oxygen balance, quickly correct hypoxia and carbon dioxide storage, cooperate with drug treatment, and quickly take out the ventilator after relief. Good treatment results were achieved. The results show that the emergency ventilator controlled by a microcomputer is effective. The total effective rate of the control group was 71.11%, which was significantly lower than that of the observation group (86.67%).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34594484 PMCID: PMC8478530 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7698769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
General information of the two groups of patients.
| Group A ( | Group B ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (female/male) | 8/16 | 10/14 | |
| Age | 67.10 ± 8.88 | 67.2 ± 7.73 | |
| With tracheal intubation | 1 | 1 | |
| History of noninvasive ventilator use | 1 | 2 | |
| Adhering to home oxygen therapy | 7 | 6 | |
| PH | 7.39 ± 0.05 | 7.40 ± 0.07 | |
| PaCO2 | 43.10 ± 3.03 | 43.3 ± 4.14 | |
| PaO2 | 95.40 ± 10.92 | 95.80 ± 11.45 | |
| SpO2 | 94.50 ± 4.25 | 93.8 ± 4.37 |
Figure 1Changes in blood gas analysis of group A before and after the use of noninvasive ventilator with tracheal intubation reserved for two hours.
The changes of blood gas analysis in group A with tracheal intubation retained and group B after extubation using a noninvasive ventilator for two hours.
| Group | PH | PaCO2 (mmHg) | PaO2 (mmHg) | SaO2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 7.39 ± 0.06 | 43.90 ± 2.92 | 93.00 ± 5.93 | 94.20 ± 3.26 |
| Group B | 7.38 ± 0.05 | 43.60 ± 2.07 | 92.50 ± 5.98 | 93.80 ± 3.22 |
|
| 0.73 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.60 |
|
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Changes in the blood gas analysis after the tracheal intubation retained in group A and the noninvasive ventilator used for extubation in group B for 24 hours.
| Group | PH | PaCO2 (mmHg) | PaO2 (mmHg) | SaO2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 7.40 ± 0.32 | 43.50 ± 2.27 | 95.50 ± 3.18 | 94.8 ± 3.29 |
| Group B | 7.35 ± 0.39 | 49.40 ± 4.45 | 91.00 ± 1.70 | 92.66 ± 2.88 |
|
| 4.00 | 4.59 | 3.95 | 2.80 |
|
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Figure 2Changes of respiratory index and blood gas analysis of two patients before and after ventilator treatment.
Comparison of treatment status of patients in different treatment groups (d).
| Parameter | Invasive + noninvasive group ( | Innovative group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasive ventilation time | 2.13 ± 0.35 | 6.25 ± 2.14 | <0.05 |
| Total mechanical ventilation time | 4.36 ± 1.04 | 6.05 ± 2.05 | <0.05 |
| Hospital stay | 9.13 ± 3.24 | 14.16 ± 4.12 | <0.05 |
| VAP | 0 | 2 | <0.05 |
Satisfaction of the two groups of patients (n, %).
| Group |
| Very satisfied | Satisfaction | Dissatisfied | Total satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 12 | 10 | 7 | 76 |
| Observation group | 30 | 19 | 11 | 0 | 100 |
Figure 3Comparison of clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction between the two groups of patients (%).
Comparison of respiratory support methods between the two groups (%).
| Group | Number of cases | Recovery position | Ventilator oxygen | Open airway | Cricothyrocentesis | Mask oxygen | Nasal cannula oxygen | Tracheal intubation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 45 | 15 (33.33) | 1 (2.22) | 38 (84.44) | 16 (35.56) | 12 (26.67) | 10 (22.22) | 2 (4.44) |
| Control group | 45 | 13 (28.89) | 1 (2.22) | 39 (88.54) | 18 (40.00) | 11 (24.44) | 9 (20.00) | 4 (8.89) |
| 0.199 | 0.000 | 3.482 | 1.916 | 0.817 | 0.223 | 0.266 | ||
| 0.351 | 1.000 | 0.297 | 0.099 | 0.191 | 0.081 | 0.267 |
Figure 4Proportion of nonrepetitive strains and plant tree.
Figure 5Proportion of pathogens.