徒手心肺复苏与心肺复苏机在呼吸心跳骤停患者CPR救治中的疗效比较

Comparison of the Curative Effect of Bare-handed Cardiopulmonary Rsuscitation and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitator in Rescue of Respiratory and Cardiac Arrest Patients

目的心肺复苏机在呼吸心跳骤停患者CPR救治中的疗效与徒手心肺复苏疗效的比较,旨在探讨心肺复苏机在濒死患者救治中的意义.方法 102例濒死患者随机分成2组,均在得到确认后4 s之内开始心肺复苏术,其中组1采用徒手心肺复苏术,组2采用心肺复苏机持续心肺复苏术,按照2010心肺复苏指南的要求,执行持续心肺复苏,观察自主心率、自主呼吸、颈动脉搏动、面色、瞳孔,心电图.结果 2组救治方法比较,观察指标证明有效或无效,组1有效1例,无效63例,有效率1.56%;组2有效6例,无效31例,有效率16.21%,2组对比两总体阳性率有差别,有统计学意义(P<0.01),组2明显高于组1.结论心肺复苏机对于呼吸心跳骤停的患者有很好的复苏效果,复苏率明显高于徒手心肺复苏,同时,在调试合理,运用娴熟的情况下,还可有诸多的好处,值得临床推广使用.

Objective To assess the clinical siginificance of the cardiopulmonary resuscitator in respiratory and cardiac arrest patients by comparing the curative effect of eardiopulmonary resuscitator and bare-handed cardiopuImonary resuscitation. Methods 102 patients on the verge of the death were randomly divided into two groups and begin to CPR in four seconds after confirmation of respiratory and cardiac arrest. Patients in group 1 were given bare-handed CPR. Patients in group 2 were given cardiopulmonary resuscitation by cardiopulmonary resuscitator. Patients in both group 1 and group 2 received lasting CPR according to the 2010 GUIDE of CPR, then we observed their self-heart-beating, self-breathing, caroid puise, expression, puplillas, ECG. Results In the group 1, the effective case was 1, the non-effcctive cases were 63, the effective rate was 1.56%. In the group 2, the effective cases were 6, the non-effective cases were 31, the effective rate was 16.21% , there was a statistically significant difference between two groups （P〈0.01） . Conclusion Cardiopulmonary resuscitator has good effect in cardiopulmomary resuscitation for respiratory and cardiac arrest patients, and the effective rate is significantly higher than bare-handed CPR, so it deserves clinical promotion.