萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心肺复苏中的应用

目的探讨萨勃心肺复苏机在心脏呼吸骤停患者进行心肺复苏（CPR）中的应用价值。方法将2008年2月-2011年3月使用萨勃心肺复苏机抢救心跳呼吸骤停（CA）患者158例作为试验组,2005年5月-2007年12月徒手心肺复苏抢救心脏呼吸骤停患者117例作为对照组。比较两组复苏中患者CPR至心跳恢复时间、撤机时间、CPR成功率及存活率;比较两组复苏成功后血氧饱和度、生命体征恢复情况。结果治疗组无论是心跳恢复时间、撤机时间、CPR成功率及存活率以及复苏成功后生命体征和血氧饱和度恢复情况都明显优于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论萨勃心肺复苏机克服了徒手CPR中因为医护人员或患者影响复苏效果的因素,使心肺复苏更趋标准有效,在CPR中有重大意义,值得临床全面推广。     

两种心肺复苏方式在院前急救中的对比研究

目的探讨使用球囊辅助呼吸与气管插管辅助呼吸两种心肺复苏方式在心脏骤停的院前急救中,对心肺复苏初期复苏效果是否存在影响。方法回顾分析院前抢救心肺复苏的153例患者资料,根据现场条件分别采取标准心肺复苏（CPR）球囊辅助通气法和气管插管通气法,比较两者建立人工通气所需时间,复苏过程中患者的血氧饱和度以及自主循环恢复率（ROSC）。结果78例使用球囊辅助呼吸抢救,自主循环恢复率为19．23％;75例使用气管插管辅助呼吸抢救,自主循环恢复率为17．33％。两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论使用球囊面罩辅助呼吸与气管插管辅助呼吸在院前心肺复苏急救中抢救成功率差别不大。     

心肺复苏机的临床应用效果分析

目的探讨心肺复苏机在心脏呼吸骤停进行心肺复苏（CPR）时应用效果。方法对82例患者行复苏前条件基本相同的情况下,分为两组,机控组运用心肺复苏机对急诊心脏呼吸骤停患者行机械心肺复苏,胸外按压和呼吸支持均使用心肺复苏机;对照组简称人工组,采用标准心肺复苏术,人工胸外按压加呼吸机容量控制通气实施标准心肺复苏。且胸外按压实行两人交替进行。两组使用复苏药物及电击除颤等抢救措施应用基本相同的情况下,比较两组病例心肺复苏术后氧分压、二氧化碳分压、血氧饱和度、收缩压情况以及按压有效率等五项指标。结果机控组的收缩压及按压有效率两项指标明显优于人工组;两组的氧分压、二氧化碳分压、血氧饱和度无显著差异。结论采用心肺复苏机可有效提高循环支持效率,值得临床推广应用。     

急性心肌梗死心跳骤停患者心肺复苏后静脉尿激酶溶栓疗效观察

目的：探讨急性心肌梗死（AMI）心跳骤停患者心肺复苏（CPR）后静脉尿激酶溶栓临床疗效观察。方法：AMI并发呼吸心跳骤停CPR成功患者11例。随机分为治疗组5例,心肺复苏后即刻静脉给予尿激酶150万U,30分内静脉注射;对照组6例,在心肺复苏后予除静脉溶栓外的积极抢救治疗。结果：治疗组的自主循环、自主呼吸恢复例数,24小时存活例数和出院存活例数明显高于对照组,自主循环恢复时间、自主呼吸恢复时间明显短于对照组。结论：AMI患者心肺复苏后进行溶栓治疗,能明显提高患者的自主循环、自主呼吸恢复率、24小时存活率、出院存活率,缩短自主循环、自主呼吸恢复时间,且不增加继发出血发生率。     

探讨心肺复苏机在心脏呼吸骤停时进行心肺复苏的应用价值

目的探讨心肺复苏机在心脏呼吸骤停时对心肺复苏的成功的影响。方法将50例心脏呼吸骤停患者随机分为两组,心肺复苏机组运用心肺复苏机对急诊心脏呼吸骤停患者运用标准心肺复苏。对照组采用普通徒手心肺复苏。两组使用复苏药物及电击除颤等抢救措施应用相同。监测体温、血红蛋白浓度、红细胞压积、心电、动脉血气分析情况。结果心肺复苏机组的自主循环恢复率和24小时存活率均明显高于对照组(P<0.05和P<0.01),心肺复苏机组的经皮氧饱和度明显高于对照组(P<0.05),而自主循环恢复时间则明显短于后者(P<0.01)。结论心肺复苏机在缩短自主循环恢复时间、提高自主循环率,改善患者生存机会等方面明显优于徒手胸外心脏按压。     

呼吸心脏骤停心肺复苏48例相关因素综合分析

目的:探讨我院急诊科心肺复苏(CPR)成功因素的综合分析。方法:对106例呼吸心脏骤停实施CPR按是否存活分为存活组与不存活组,其中存活组48例,未存活组58例,把存活组的临床资料、复苏开始的时间、建立静脉通道的时间、药物选择、气管插管所需的时间与心肺复苏成功率进行相关性分析,各组分别观察自主循环恢复率、24h存活率。结果:在急诊科CPR的成功率45.3%,存活组中复苏开始越早、建立静脉通道越早及尽早气管插管的患者其恢复自主循环的时间越早,24h存活率越高,两组比较差异有统计学意义;存活组中联合使用复苏药物的患者其恢复自主循环的时间越早,24h存活率越高,差异有统计学意义。结论:CPR复苏的时间越早,气管插管所需的时间越短,尽早建立静脉通道,联合使用肾上腺素、氨茶碱及盐酸纳络酮是提高自主循环恢复率及24h存活率的重要因素。     

Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪与人工心肺复苏效果比较

目的比较使用Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪和人工心肺复苏的效果以评价Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪在临床应用的价值。方法选择122例院内发生心跳呼吸骤停患者随机分为试验组和对照组,试验组使用Auto-pulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪,对照组采用人工标准心肺复苏进行心肺复苏。比较两组患者的循环、呼吸恢复情况,复苏成功率及24 h存活率。结果试验组患者平均动脉压和脉搏氧饱和度水平高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);试验组自主循环恢复时间明显短于对照组〔(6.1±1.8)min和(15.2±2.3)min,P<0.05〕;试验组复苏成功率高于对照组(70.8%和33.3%,P<0.01);试验组24 h存活率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(35.4%和23.6%,P<0.05)。结论 Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪在循环、呼吸恢复情况,复苏成功率及24 h存活率方面优于人工心肺复苏。     

心脏骤停患者心肺复苏的急救体会

心肺复苏(CPR)是针对呼吸心跳停止的急症危重病人所采取的抢救措施,即胸外按压形成暂时的人工循环并恢复自主搏动和血液循环,采用人工呼吸或机械通气代替自主呼吸并恢复自主呼吸,达到恢复苏醒和挽救生命的目的[1].快速电除颤转复心室颤动,以及尽早使用血管活性药物来重新恢复自主循环为进一步提高心肺复苏(CPR)成功急救的技术.迅速准确判断且抓住心跳呼吸骤停5 min内抢救的最佳时间,是提高心肺复苏(CPR)成功的重要环节.     

萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心跳呼吸骤停患者中的应用

目的:探究分析萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心跳呼吸骤停患者进行心肺复苏中的应用效果。方法:选取200例心跳呼吸骤停急诊患者,按照随机数字表法分为对照组(徒手进行心肺复苏)和观察组(应用萨勃心肺复苏机进行心肺复苏),比较两组患者的心肺复苏至心跳恢复时间,心肺复苏成功率以及患者存活率,并比较两组患者复苏成功后的心率、收缩压、血氧饱和度以及呼吸频率。结果:观察组患者的心肺复苏至心跳恢复时间短于对照组,复苏成功率及存活率高于对照组,复苏成功后的心率、收缩压、血氧饱和度以及呼吸频率优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心跳呼吸骤停患者进行心肺复苏中的应用效果显著,能够提高患者的复苏率与存活率。     

Thumper心肺复苏机在临床心肺复苏中的疗效

【目的】探讨心肺复苏机Thumper-1005型在心脏呼吸骤停进行心肺复苏（CPR）时应用价值。【方法】101例患者行复苏前条件基本相同的情况下,分为两组,Thumper组运用心肺复苏机Thumper-1005型对急诊心脏呼吸骤停患者行机械心肺复苏（cardiopulmonary resusitation,机械CPR）。对照组采用徒手标准心肺复苏（standard cardiopulmonary,SCPR）,简称SCPR组。两组使用复苏药物及电击除颤等抢救措施应用基本相同。【结果】Thumper组在复苏时心肺复苏有效率明显高于SCPR组。【结论】采用机械-CPR可使复苏的有效率得到提高,值得推广应用。     

萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊抢救中的应用

目的：观察萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心肺复苏中的临床效果.方法：将我院2011年1月至2012年12月收治的123例心脏骤停用萨勃心肺复苏机（机械CPR组）的患者与2009年1月至2010年12月收治的108例用徒手心肺复苏（徒手CPR组）的患者进行对比分析.两组患者均同时使用电除颤和药物等治疗.结果：机械CPR组有效率47.2％,明显高于徒手CPR组,有效率29.6％（P＜0.05）;机械CPR组的平均动脉压、血氧分压、血氧饱和度明显高于徒手CPR组（P＜0.01）.结论：萨勃心肺复苏机在急诊心肺复苏中可以提高抢救成功率,降低不良反应.     

Active compression-decompression. A new method of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Working Group.

OBJECTIVE--To describe and compare with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in humans a new form of CPR that involves both active compression and active decompression of the chest. DESIGN--Patients in cardiac arrest in whom standard advanced cardiac life support failed were randomized to receive 2 minutes of either standard or active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR using a custom, hand-held suction device, followed by 2 minutes of the alternate technique. The ACD device was applied midsternum and used to perform CPR according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association: 80 compressions per minute, compression depth of 3.8 to 5 cm, 50% duty cycle, and constant-volume ventilation. Mechanical Thumper CPR was also compared in five patients. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) concentrations and hemodynamic variables were measured. Transesophageal Doppler echocardiography was used to assess contractility, the velocity time integral (an analogue of cardiac output), and diastolic myocardial filling times. RESULTS--Ten patients were enrolled. The mean +/- SD ETCO2 was 4.3 +/- 3.8 mm Hg with standard CPR and 9.0 +/- 3.9 mm Hg with ACD CPR (P less than .0001). Systolic arterial pressure with standard CPR was 52.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg and with ACD CPR, 88.9 +/- 24.7 mm Hg (P less than .003). The velocity time integral increased from 7.3 +/- 2.6 cm with standard CPR to 17.5 +/- 5.6 cm with ACD CPR (P less than .0001), and diastolic filling times increased from 0.23 +/- .09 seconds with standard CPR to 0.37 +/- .12 seconds with ACD CPR (P less than .004). Mechanical Thumper CPR consistently underperformed both standard and ACD CPR. Minute ventilation obtained in four patients during ACD CPR without endotracheal ventilation was 6.6 +/- 0.9 L/min. After 1 hour of standard CPR failed, three of 10 patients randomized to ACD CPR rapidly converted to a hemodynamically stable rhythm following 2 minutes of ACD CPR. CONCLUSION--ACD CPR is a simple manual technique that improved cardiopulmonary circulation in 10 patients during cardiac arrest. Although ACD CPR may have produced a return of spontaneous circulation in three patients refractory to standard measures, its impact on survival when used early in cardiac arrest remains to be determined.     

Improved survival outcome with continuous chest compressions with ventilation compared to 5:1 compressions-to-ventilations mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

BackgroundFewer pauses and better chest compression quality are thought to improve overall survival following cardiac arrest. This study aimed to measure the outcomes of adult nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) treated with 5:1 compressions-to-ventilations (Thumper 1007) or continuous chest compressions with ventilation (Thumper 1008 CCV) mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) within a specified period of time.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study of 515 adults with OHCA was conducted at the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital. There were 307 patients in the Thumper 1007 phase (January 2008 to December 2009) and 208 patients in the Thumper 1008 CCV phase (January 2010 to May 2011). Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge were the primary outcome measures.ResultsPatients in the Thumper 1007 and Thumper 1008 CCV phases had comparable results with the following exceptions: less hypertension (42.4% vs. 62.0%), cerebrovascular accidents (11.4% vs. 25.0%), and faster emergency medical service response time intervals (mean, 3.7 vs. 4.5 minutes) with the Thumper 1007. The average ambulance transport time was 6.1 minutes in both phases. The rates of ROSC [35.1% vs. 23.5%; adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.616; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.073–2.432] and survival to hospital discharge (10.1% vs. 4.2%; adjusted OR 2.431; 95% CI, 1.154–5.120) were significantly higher with the Thumper 1008 CCV than with the Thumper 1007. Favorable neurologic outcome upon discharge, defined as cerebral performance category scores of 1 (good performance) or 2 (moderate disability), was not significantly different between the two phases [1.6% (5/307) vs. 1.9% (4/208); p = 0.802]. The Thumper 1008 CCV provided significantly faster average chest compression rates and shorter no-chest compression intervals than the Thumper 1007 after activation.ConclusionIn an emergency department with short ambulance transport times, continuous chest compressions with ventilation through mechanical CPR showed improved outcomes, including ROSC and survival to hospital discharge, in an adult with OHCA. However, there are a variety of confounding influences that may affect the validity of conclusions that have been drawn.     

绑带式胸廓挤压仪在心跳骤停小型猪心肺复苏中的作用

目的 观察新型绑带式胸廓挤压仪在心跳骤停小型猪心肺复苏(CPR)中的效果,并与传统人工按压的CPR结果进行比较.方法 26只小型猪随机分为机械按压组(n=13)和传统人工按压组(n=13),在电击诱发心室颤动(室颤)致心跳骤停4 min后分别实施机械胸外按压和人工胸外按压.比较两组动物CPR后的存活率;测定并比较两组动物诱导室颤前和恢复自主循环(ROSC)后1 min、5 min和1h时间点的血流动力学指标、主动脉血气参数和乳酸浓度;X线摄片观察CPR成功后动物肋骨的损伤情况.结果 两组动物在ROSC时和CPR后1h的存活率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).人工按压组在ROSC 1 min时的主动脉收缩压(AOS)、主动脉舒张压(AOD)和平均动脉压(MAP)均显著高于机械按压组(P＜0.05),而各时间点的冠状动脉灌注压(CPP)比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);机械按压组在ROSC 1 min、15 min及1h时间点的血液乳酸浓度均明显低于人工按压组(P＜0.05).X线胸片显示,机械按压组的肋骨损伤发生率与人工按压组比较差异无统计学意义(33.3％和45.5％)(P＞0.05).结论 绑带式胸廓挤压仪在小型猪CPR中的效果与传统人工按压效果相似,可以作为代替CPR中人工按压的一种方法.     

临床专业硕士研究生心肺复苏技能掌握现状调查

目的:探讨医学生对心肺复苏术技能的掌握情况。方法:随机抽取同济医学院研究生176人,在心肺复苏模型上行单人徒手心肺复苏术操作,通过观察表记录学生的具体操作情况,通过监测仪记录胸外按压、人工呼吸的有效率。结果:154人进行了心跳呼吸骤停的判断(87.5%),但启动急救反应(EMS)系统率、胸外按压和人工呼吸有效率较低,分别为25.6%、53.4%和24.4%,男生胸外按压的有效率为60.8%,女生为39.3%,两者比较有显著性差异(P<0.01),但男生胸外按压手法正确率、人工呼吸手法正确率和有效率分别为77.3%、71.1%、24.7%,女生分别为70.7%、73.0%、21.3%,两者比较无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:该医学研究生心肺复苏技能整体水平不高,应在实际教学中进行系统的心肺复苏技能培训,提高心肺复苏水平。     

IAC-CPR和标准CPR在心脏骤停病人的应用对比研究

目的 :明确院内心脏骤停的病人在行标准CPR的同时附加IAC能否提高复苏成功率并探讨IAC -CPR下冠脉灌注压的变化。方法 :5 1例院内发生的心脏骤停病人随机分为IAC -CPR组 (即实验组n =2 5 )和标准CPR组(即对照组n =2 6)。对照组按照ABC程序紧急行标准心肺复苏术 (S -CPR) ;实验组在进行S -CPR的同时 ,在胸部按压放松时行一次腹部按压 ,按压力度为 15 0mmHg～ 2 0 0mmHg(1Kpa =7.5mmHg) ,按压频率为 10 0次 /分～12 0次 /分 ,压胸与压腹交替进行。两组均监测有创动脉压及右房压。结果 :实验组自主循环恢复率为 84% ,对照组为 5 4% ,两组比较差异有显著性 ,P <0 .0 5 ;2 4h生存率分别为 68%、2 7% ,两组比较差异有显著性 ,P <0 .0 1;实验组冠脉最高灌注压为 3 1.4mmHg± 11.4mmHg对照组为 13 .0mmHg± 6.9mmHg ,两组比较差异有显著性 ,P <0 .0 1。结论 :IAC -CPR可明显地提高冠脉灌注压 ,增加自主循环恢复率和 2 4h生存率 ,未发现明显并发症     

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest with interposed abdominal counterpulsation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE.--To determine whether interposed abdominal counterpulsation (IAC) during standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves outcome in patients experiencing in-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN AND SETTING.--Randomized controlled trial in a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS.--Patients experiencing in-hospital cardiac arrest during a 6-month period. INTERVENTIONS.--Patients were randomized to receive either IAC during CPR or standard CPR in the event of cardiac arrest. Abdominal compressions were performed during the relaxation phase of chest compression, corresponding to CPR diastole, at a rate of 80/min to 100/min. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES.--The three end points studied were (1) return of spontaneous circulation, (2) survival 24 hours after resuscitation, and (3) survival to hospital discharge. In addition, we examined neurological outcome in those patients surviving to hospital discharge. RESULTS.--During the study period there were 135 resuscitation attempts in 103 patients. Return of spontaneous circulation was significantly greater in the group receiving IAC during CPR than in the group receiving standard CPR (51% vs 27%, P = .007). At hospital discharge, a significantly greater proportion of patients was alive in the IAC group than in the control group (25% vs 7%, P = .02). Eight (17%) of 48 patients who received IAC during CPR survived to hospital discharge neurologically intact, compared with only three (6%) of 55 patients from the standard CPR group (not significant). CONCLUSIONS.--We conclude that the addition of IAC to standard CPR may improve meaningful survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. The optimal use of this technique awaits further clinical trials.     

两种不同复苏方式的早期复苏成功率比较

目的:探讨心跳停止4min内,即在大脑发生不可逆转的坏死前开始复苏,开胸与闭胸复苏在自主循环恢复率(ROSC)、心肺脑复苏成功率方面的差异。方法:健康杂种犬24只,随机分为:闭胸复苏组(CCCPR组),开胸复苏组(OCCPR组)。闭胸复苏组采用国际心肺复苏指南2005的标准及体外除颤的方法进行复苏;开胸复苏组,采用开胸直接挤压心脏及心外膜除颤方法进行复苏。按压(或挤压)2min后,静脉注射肾上腺素1mg,继续复苏2min后,电击除颤。如自主循环未恢复,则继续以上复苏,复苏30min无效则放弃。结果:自主循环恢复率:CCCPR组4/12(33.3%),OCCPR组12/12(100%),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。心肺脑复苏成功率:CCCPR组4/12(33.3%),OCCPR组11/12(91.7%),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。自主循环恢复时间:CCCPR组15～30min,平均21min;OCCPR组4～10min,平均8min。结论:对发生在院内及有急救人员在现场的心跳停止者,宜及早采用开胸心肺复苏,以确保大脑复苏成功。