两种心肺复苏方式在院前急救中的对比研究  

Comparative study of two cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods in the first aid.

作　　者：邵效[1] 邓活[1] 陈巍宇[1] 陈青梅[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省农垦中心医院急诊科,广东湛江524002

出　　处：《海南医学》2010年第8期33-34,共2页Hainan Medical Journal

摘　　要：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。Objective To study whether there have a different effect between bag - mask ventilation and endotraeheal intubation ventilation on cardiopulmonary resuscitation（CPR） in pre - hospital first aid of cardiac arrest. Methods A total of 153 eases of CPR in pre - hospital first aid were analyzed retrospectively. The cases were divided into two groups according to the conditions of the scenes. One group （ 78 cases） was provided bag - mask ventilation as soon as CPR began, and another group （75 eases ） was provided endotracheal intubation ventilation during the CPR. The average time of intubatious, oxygen saturation and the restoration of spontaneous circulation （ROSC） were used as comparison. Results The rates of ROSC were 19.23% and 17.33% in bag - mask ventilation group and endotracheal intubation ventilation group, respectively, and there was no statistical significance between two groups. Conehtsion There is no difference of successful rate between two cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods in first aid of cardiac arrest.

关 键 词：院前急救 心肺复苏 球囊面罩 气管插管 

分 类 号：R605.974[医药卫生—急诊医学]