徒手心肺复苏与Michigan Instruments,Inc.心肺复苏器在急诊科应用效果比较

Free-hand CPR and Michigan Instruments,Inc.Comparison of the Effect of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Emergency Department

目的:分析比较在为急诊科患者实施心肺复苏治疗的过程中徒手心肺复苏与Michigan Instruments,Inc.心肺复苏器所获得的临床应用效果。方法:本次实验研究将2020年1月~2021年12月在本院急诊接受心肺复苏治疗的患者62例根据随机双盲法分为观察组(n=31)与对照组(n=31),其心肺复苏方式分别为Michigan Instruments,Inc.心肺复苏器与徒手心肺复苏。结果:观察组患者心肺复苏有效率、复苏后10min颈动脉血流平均速度、复苏时间、复苏后即刻乳酸值与血氧饱和度以及复苏后血气分析指标、并发症发生率均显著差别于对照组患者,P<0.05;心肺复苏后20min、30min两组患者颈动脉血流平均速度无显著差异,P>0.05。结论:对于急诊科需要接受心肺复苏治疗的患者来说Michigan Instruments,Inc.心肺复苏器的应用获得了较为显著的效果。

Objective:To analyze and compare the results of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with that of Michigan Instruments,Inc.clinical application effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation device.Methods:In this experimental study,62 patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department of our hospital from January 2020 to December 2021 were randomly divided into the observation group(n=31)and the control group(n=31)according to the double-blind method.Their cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods were Michigan Instruments,Inc.cardiopulmonary resuscitator and barehanded cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Results:The effective rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation,the average velocity of carotid blood flow 10min after resuscitation,the time of resuscitation,the lactate value and blood oxygen saturation immediately after resuscitation,the blood gas analysis index and the incidence of complications in the observation group were significantly different from those in the control group(P<0.05);There was no significant difference in the average velocity of carotid blood flow between the two groups at 20min and 30min after cardiopulmonary resuscitation(P>0.05).Conclusions:For patients who need cardiopulmonary resuscitation in emergency department,the application of Michigan Instruments,Inc.cardiopulmonary resuscitation device has achieved remarkable results.