心肺复苏机与徒手心肺复苏临床疗效的研究  

Clinical effectiveness research of rescuing cardiac and respiratory arrests patients by using CPR model and bare-handed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation

作　　者：崔建[1] 尚瑞雯[2] 范立平[2] 韩绿娟[2] 杨学清[2] 高华安[1] 丁焕焕[1] 孟凡杰[1] 宋霞[1] 林运[2] 

机构地区：[1]山东省日照市人民医院心内科,日照276800 [2]北京安贞医院心内科

出　　处：《中国循证心血管医学杂志》2009年第5期299-300,302,共3页Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine

摘　　要：目的分析使用心肺复苏机与徒手心肺复苏抢救心脏呼吸骤停患者的临床疗效。方法选取来院心脏呼吸骤停的87例患者为研究对象,其中49例均采用CPR model心肺复苏,为实验组;其余38例采用徒手心肺复苏,为对照组。结果实验组平均动脉压、血氧分压、血氧饱和度、有效率均显著优于对照组(P<0.05),并发症发生率显著低于对照组(P<0.05),而两组间复苏成功率无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论心肺复苏机比徒手心肺复苏能更好的改善心脏呼吸骤停患者的平均动脉压、血氧分压、血氧饱和度,但不能挽救更多的患者生命。Objective To analysis clinical effect of rescuing cardiac and respiratory arrests patients by using CPR model and bare-handed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Methods We selected 87 cardiac and respiratory arrests patients when reaching hospital as our research object, in which 49 cases received CPR model cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, we name them experimental group, and other 38 cases received bare-handed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, named control group. Results Mean arterial pressure blood, oxygen partial pressure, oxygen saturation of blood, effective rate in experimental group were significance superior to control group （ P 〈 0.05 ） , there were significance lower rates of complication in experimental group, but there were no significance difference in cardiopulmonary success rates between two groups. Conclusion For cardiac and respiratory arrests patients who received CPR model would make better at mean arterial pres- sure blood, oxygen partial pressure, oxygen saturation of blood, effective rate than them who received barehanded cardio-pulmonary resuscitation,but the former had no more chance to survive.

关 键 词：心肺复苏机 徒手心肺复苏 血氧分压 临床疗效 

分 类 号：R654.1[医药卫生—外科学]