【摘要】 目的比较分析雾化吸入与静脉给药治疗支气管哮喘的临床疗效。方法便利选取2017年3月—2018年3月该院收治的支气管哮喘患者96例,将其分为两组,观察组患者接受雾化吸入治疗,对照组患者应用静脉给药治疗,对比两组患者的治疗效果。结果观察组的治疗有效率为91.67%,对照组为93.75%,两组患者治疗有效率方面差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.876,P>0.05,);观察组患者治疗期间的不良反应率(8.33%)明显低于对照组(22.92%),差异有统计学意义(χ2=9.889,P<0.05)。结论雾化吸入与静脉给药都能够为支气管哮喘患者提供良好的治疗,两者治疗支气管哮喘的效果差异并不十分明显,而从治疗期间不良反应情况看,雾化吸入治疗患者的不良反应情况要更少,使用雾化吸入治疗的安全性和便捷性更好,值得推广使用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of aerosol inhalation and intravenous administration in the treatment of bronchial asthma. Methods Convenient selected ninety-six patients with bronchial asthma admitted to the hospital from March 2017 to March 2018 were enrolled and divided into two groups. Patients in the observation group received aerosol inhalation therapy, and patients in the control group received intravenous drug therapy. The patient’s treatment effect were compared. Results The effective rate of treatment was 91.67% in the observation group and 93.75% in the control group.There was no significant difference in the treatment efficiency between the two groups(χ2=0.876,P>0.05). The response rate(8.33%) was significantly lower than that of the control group(22.92%), and the difference was statistically significant(χ2=9.889,P <0.05). Conclusion Both nebulized inhalation and intravenous administration can provide good treatment for patients with bronchial asthma. The difference between the two treatments for bronchial asthma is not very obvious. From the adverse reaction during treatment, the adverse reactions of patients treated with aerosol inhalation situation is even less,and the safety and convenience of using nebulized inhalation therapy is better and worth promoting.更多还原