视频急救报警系统远程指导非医务人员单人心肺复苏的研究效果

目的:探讨视频急救系统远程指导非医务人员实施单人心肺复苏（cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR）的可行性效果。方法:选择60名非医务人员志愿者,随机分为视频组（ n=40）和音频组（ n=20）。视频组预装有视频急救系统手机应用软件（aApplication,,APP）报警并接受远程视频指导实施CPR;音频组使用语音报警并接受远程语音指导CPR。比较两组实施CPR时的按压深度、按压频率、送气量以及第一次开始按压的时间等指标。视频组内再分5个亚组,比较5款不同型号智能手机心肺复苏CPR效果的差异。每组共观察10个CPR循环。 结果:视频组按压位置准确率显著高于音频组（91.5% vs. 71.35%, P<0.05）;、按压深度在5~6 cm范围的比例明显高于音频组（62.79% vs. 44.73%, P<0.05）;平均按压频率在100~120次/min的比例（70% vs. 52%, P<0.05）;通气量在500~600 mL/次的比例（18.25% vs. 10.75%, P<0.05）和通气量大于500 mL l次/min的比例高于音频组（64.88% vs. 43%, P<0.05）均显著高于音频组（均 P<0.05）。第一次按压时间视频组长于音频组（131 s vs. 106 s, P<0.05）,第一次通气时间两组之间差异无统计学意义（148 s vs. 144 s, P>0.05）。按压总停顿时间视频组少于音频组（122.4 s vs. 164.2 s, P<0.05）。视频组内的5款不同型号手机之间上述指标的差异无统计学意义（均 P>0.05）。 结论:与电话远程指导相比,应用视频急救系统远程指导非医务人员实施单人CPR时,在按压位置准确率、按压深度、按压频率、通气量、按压停顿时间等方面均有明显优势,但首次按压时间稍长于音频组;目前市面上畅销的智能手机均可应用。该系统的推广应用对提高非医务人员CPR质量及复苏成功率、鼓励第一目击者实施CPR等都将具有积极意义。

The effects of emergency video call system on remote guidance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation implemented by non-medical volunteers

Objective:To explore the feasibility of emergency video call system in remote guidance of non-medical volunteers to implement single person cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).Methods:A scenario of sudden cardiac arrest with a bystander in a public place was created at Clinical Skill Training Center. 60 non-medical volunteers were randomly (ramdom number) divided into video group ( n = 40) and audio group ( n = 20). Volunteers in video group were remote instructed with the smart phone application software (APP) of Emergency Video Call System to implement CPR; the audio group receives remote voice guidance for CPR with a smart phone. The pressing depth, pressing frequency, volume of ventilation and the time of the first compression were compared between the two groups. The video group was divided into 5 subgroups to compare the cardiopulmonary resuscitation effect of 5 different models of smart phones. Ten CPR cycles were observed in each group. Results:the accuracy rate of pressing position in the video group was significantly higher than that in the audio group (91.5% vs 71.35%, P < 0.05); the proportion of pressing depth in the range of 5-6 cm was significantly higher than that in the audio group (62.79% vs. 44.73%, P < 0.05); the average pressing frequency was 100-120 times / min (70% vs. 52%, P < 0.05); the ventilation volume was 500-600 mL / time (18.25% vs. 10.75%, P < 0.05); The proportion of ventilation volume greater than 500ml / min was higher than that of audio group (64.88% vs. 43%, P < 0.05). The first pressing time was longer in the video group than in the audio group (131 s vs. 106 s, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the first ventilation time between the two groups (148 s vs. 144 s, P > 0.05). The total pressing pause time in video group was less than that in audio group (122.4 s vs. 164.2 s, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the above indicators among the five different models of smart phones in the video group ( P > 0.05). Conclusions:compared with audio remote guidance, video emergency system has obvious advantages in the accuracy of pressing position, pressing depth, pressing frequency, ventilation volume and pressing pause time, but the first pressing time is slightly longer than that of audio group. The popularization and application of the video system is supposed to improve the CPR quality and recovery success rate of non-medical personnel, and facilitated to encourage the first witness to implement CPR.