Abstract: Objectives　To explore the correlation between atomization inhalation and pulmonary infection in patients taking tracheal intubation and non-mechanical ventilation. Methods　Sixty patients with intracerebral hemorrhage who took tracheal intubation at Department of Neurosurgery, Longgang District Central Hospital within 24 h after admission from January 2020 to June 2021 were selected, and were divided into group A and group B by the random number table method, with 30 cases in each group. There were 27 males and 3 females in group A who were averagely 50.23 years old. There were 26 males and 4 females in group B who were averagely 51.20 years old. Group A took airway humidification on the basis of artificial nose and full fluid replacement, and intravenously injected 30 mg mucosolvan and 20 ml normal saline for sputum excretion, Bid. Group B added 1 mg budesonide and 10 ml normal saline Tid on the basis of group A. The respiratory rates, oxygen saturations of blood (SPO₂), sputum volumes, and clinical pulmonary infection scores (CPIS) of the two groups were compared. t test was applied. Results　There were no statistical differences in respiratory rate, SPO₂, sputum volume, and CPIS between the two groups at admission (all P>0.05). Seventy-two hours after admission, the sputum volume was (22.40±1.15) ml in group A, and was (25.93±1.24) ml in group B, with a statistical difference (P<0.05). One hundred and forty-four hours after admission, the sputum volume and CPIS were (21.00±0.89) ml and (2.63±0.32) in group A, and was (25.00±0.98) ml and (4.33±0.38) in group B, with statistical differences (both P<0.05). Conclusions　Atomization inhalation increases or aggravates the patients' pulmonary infection. It is not recommended to prevent or treat pulmonary infection in patients taking endotracheal intubation and non-mechanical ventilation.

Key words: Atomization inhalation, Tracheal intubation, Pulmonary infection, CPIS

摘要： 目的　探讨气管插管非机械通气患者雾化吸入与肺部感染的相关性。方法　选择2020年1月至2021年3月深圳市龙岗中心医院神经外科收治的60例自发性脑出血并在入院24 h内均行气管插管术的患者为研究对象，随机数字表法分为A组和B组，各30例。A组平均年龄50.23岁，男27例，女3例；B组平均年龄51.20岁，男26例，女4例。A组人工鼻+充分补液基础上进行气道湿化，促进排痰使用沐舒坦30 mg生理盐水20 ml静脉注射Bid；B组在A组的基础上增加雾化吸入布地奈德1 mg+生理盐水10 ml Tid。比较两组患者呼吸频率、血氧饱和度（SPO₂）、痰液量、临床肺部感染评分（CPIS）情况。采用t检验。结果　两组患者入院时呼吸频率、SPO₂、痰液量、CPIS比较，差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。入院72 h，A组痰液量（22.40±1.15）ml，B组（25.93±1.24）ml，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；入院144 h，A组痰液量、CPIS（21.00±0.89）ml、（2.63±0.32）分，B组（25.00±0.98）ml、（4.33±0.38）分，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。结论　雾化吸入增加或加重了患者肺部感染，气管插管非机械通气患者不建议雾化吸入预防或者治疗肺部感染。

关键词: 雾化吸入, 气管插管, 肺部感染, CPIS