1007CCV型心肺复苏器依照2010新指南在心肺复苏中的应用比较

Application of 1007CCV cardiopulmonary resuscitator on cardiopulmonary resuscitation inaccordance with the 2010 new guidelines

目的探讨1007CCV型气动心肺复苏（CPR）器（以下简称复苏器）依照（2010美国心脏学会心肺复苏与心血管急救指南》（以下简称新指南）对心搏、呼吸骤停（CPA）患者进行抢救复苏的应用价值。方法将2006—07～2012—07期间238例成人心搏、呼吸骤停患者按抢救方法的不同随机分为三组，进行对比分析，其中使用复苏器依照新指南进行CPR的为机械（M）组（n=77）；遵循新指南进行徒手CPR的为徒手标准（s）组（n=79）；按传统CPR法进行徒手CPR的为传统（T）组（n：82）。结果三组CPA患者复苏效率比较：s组比T组复苏时间缩短（P〈0．01），复苏成功率高（P〈0．05），存活率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；而M组都明显高于S组（P〈0．05）；S组心率、呼吸频率、平均动脉血压、SpO2、撤机时间与T组比较，差异有统计学意义（P值均〈Ⅳ0．05），而同样M组与S组比较，差异有统计学意义（P值均〈0．01）。结论1007CCV型心肺复苏器依照新指南在CPR中的效果要优于徒手胸外心脏按压，故值得在急救中推广，以抢救更多患者的生命。

Objective To investigate the value of 1007CCV pneumatic cardiopulmonary resuscitator （referred to as the resuscitator） on patients with cardiopulmonary arrest in accordance with 2010 American Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Guidelines （referred to as the new guidelines）. Methods 238 adult patients with eardiopulmonary arrest were randomly divided into three groups by the different rescue method from July 2006 to July 2012, compared and analyzed, in which the resuscitator was carried out in accordance with the new guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation for mechanical （ M ） group （ n = 77 ）, followed the new guidelines for hand cardiopulmonary resuscitation as standard（S） group（ n = 79 ）, hand cardiopulmonary resuscitation according to the way of traditional eardiopulmonary resuscitation for the traditional（T） group （ n = 82）. Results The resuscitation efficiency of three groups of patient with cardiopulmonary arrest was compared： S group shorter resuscitation time than the T group （ P 〈 0. 01 ）, the successful resuscitation rate higher（ P 〈 0.05 ）, survival was no difference（ P 〉 0.05 ）, while the M group were all significantly higher than the S group （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. S group compared with the T group, heart rate, respiratory rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO2, weaning time, there were all significant differences （ all P 〈 0.05 ）, while the same, M group compared with S group, P 〈 0.01. Conclusion Resuscitator effect in accordance with the new guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is superior to external cardiac massage migration hand, it is worthy of promotion in the first aid.