心肺复苏机与徒手心肺复苏抢救心脏骤停的临床效果比较

目的：比较心肺复苏机与徒手心肺复苏抢救心脏骤停患者的临床疗效，寻求有效的心脏骤停的抢救方法。方法回顾性分析100例心脏骤停患者临床资料。2011年1月至2012年1月收治的50例心脏骤停患者作为对照组，采取徒手心肺复苏进行抢救；2012年1月至2013年1月收治的50例心脏骤停患者作为观察组，采取心肺复苏机进行抢救。观察并比较两组患者术后的疗效。结果观察组心肺复苏后收缩压、SpO2及心率分别为（95．2±10．4） mmHg、（93．1±8．2）％、（89．6±5．7）次/min，均明显高于对照组的（71．8±6．7）mmHg、（78．7±5．5）％、（70．8±5．2）次/min，组间差异有统计学意义（t＝8．456、8．246、9．625，均P＜0．05）；两组呼吸频率差异无统计学意义（t＝0．955，P＞0．05）；观察组复苏成功率及存活率分别为72％、46％，均明显高于对照组（44％、22％），观察组不良反应发生率为2％，低于对照组（18％），组间差异均有统计学意义（χ2＝8．05、6．42、10．15，均P＜0．05）。心肺复苏后5 min两组患者动脉血气分析指标PaO2、PaCO2、SaO2差异均无统计学意义（ t＝0．868、0．922、0．747，均P＞0．05）；15 min、30 min后两组患者PaO2、PaCO2、SaO2等动脉血气分析指标差异均有统计学意义（ t＝5．984、4．673、4．685、9．647、8．356、5．534，均P＜0．05）。结论心肺复苏机较徒手心肺复苏在抢救心脏骤停患者中具有明显优势，可明显缩短自主循环时间，提高心肺复苏成功率，疗效确切，且不良反应较少，是一种简单、安全和有效的抢救方法，值得在临床广泛推广应用。

Comparison of the clinical effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation machine and unarmed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in rescuing patients with cardiac arrest

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation （ CPR） machine and unarmed CPR in rescuing patients with cardiac arrest , in order to seek effective rescue methods for cardiac arrest . Methods From January 2011 to January 2013,the clinical data of 100 patients with cardiac arrest were retrospec-tively analyzed.50 cases with cardiac arrest who admitted in our hospital from January 2011 to January 2012,were selected as control group,they received unarmed CPR rescue.50 cases with cardiac arrest who admitted in our hospital from January 2012 to January 2013 were selected as the observation group ,they used CPR machine for emergency treat-ment.The postoperative efficacy was observed and compared .Results After CPR,the systolic blood pressure,SpO2 and heart rate in the observation group were （95.2 ±10.4）mmHg,（93.1 ±8.2）%,（89.6 ±5.7）beats/min,which were significantly higher than （71.8 ±6.7）mmHg,（78.7 ±5.5）%,（70.8 ±5.2）beats/min in the control group, the differences between two groups were statistically significant （t=8.456,8.246,9.625,all P〈0.05）.The respira-tory frequency between the two groups had no statistically significant difference （t=0.955,P〉0.05）.The successful resuscitation rate and survival rate of the observation group were 72%,46%, which were significantly higher than 44%,22%of the control group ,the incidence rate of adverse reactions in the observation group was 2%,which was significantly lower than 18%in the control group （χ2 =8.05,6.42,10.15,all P〈0.05）.5min after CPR,the arteri-al blood gas analysis indicators PaO 2 ,PaCO2 ,SaO2 between the two groups had no statistically significant differences （t=0.868,0.922,0.747,P〉0.05）;15min,30min after CPR,PaO2,PaCO2,SaO2 and other arteries blood gas anal-ysis indicators between the two groups had significant differences （t=5.984,4.673,4.685,9.647,8.356,5.534,all P〈0.05）.Conclusion Compared with unarmed CPR,CPR machine has obvious advantages in the rescue of cardiac arres