Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 16, 2022; 10(17): 5577-5585
Published online Jun 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5577
Published online Jun 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5577
Table 1 Comparison of general data of patients between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Sex | Age (yr) | Acute physiological and chronic health score (score) | Sequential organ failure score (score) | Number of basic illnesses | ||||||
| Female | Male | 1 type | 2 type | 3 type | 4 type | 5 type | 6 type | ||||
| Conventional treatment group (n = 55) | 15 (27.27) | 40 (72.73) | 53.82 ± 16.08 | 27.71 ± 4.55 | 11.76 ± 3.15 | 5 (9.09) | 11 (20.00) | 17 (30.91) | 14 (25.45) | 5 (9.09) | 3 (5.45) |
| Prone position ventilation treatment group (n = 47) | 14 (29.79) | 33 (70.21) | 53.15 ± 14.16 | 28.28 ± 4.49 | 10.57 ± 3.01 | 5 (10.64) | 14 (29.79) | 19 (40.43) | 4 (8.5) | 4 (8.51) | 1 (2.13) |
| χ2 /t value | 0.079 | 0.222 | 0.634 | 1.941 | 6.551 | ||||||
| P value | 0.779 | 0.825 | 0.527 | 0.055 | 0.256 | ||||||
- Citation: Xia WH, Yang CL, Chen Z, Ouyang CH, Ouyang GQ, Li QG. Clinical evaluation of prone position ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by sepsis. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(17): 5577-5585
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i17/5577.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5577