检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《现代预防医学》2012年第17期4568-4569,共2页Modern Preventive Medicine
摘 要:目的在超长心肺复苏中,比较使用心肺复苏仪与人工标准心肺复苏的疗效与优势。方法 113例超长心肺复苏分为心肺复苏仪组、人工标准心肺复苏组,比较两组复苏成效以及收缩压与血氧饱和度。结果心肺复苏仪组在复苏失败、复苏有效、复苏成功三方面较人工标准心肺复苏组差异有统计学意义,复苏失败率较后者低而复苏有效率和复苏成功率较后者高(P﹤0.01),收缩压与血氧饱和度明显高于人工标准心肺复苏组(P﹤0.01)。结论在超长心肺复苏中,使用心肺复苏仪具有较强的优越性,复苏成效确切,值得在临床推广使用。OBJECTIVE To compare the effect and superiority between using cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument and manual standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the long cardiopulmonary resuscitation.METHODS 113 cases of long cardiopulmonary resuscitation were divided into cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument group and manual standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation group.Compared the resuscitation effect,systolic pressure and oxyhemoglobin saturation.RESULTS The group of cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument was obviously different from the group of manual standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in three aspects of resuscitation failure,effective and success,its resuscitation failure rate was lower than the latter,its resuscitation effective and success rates were higher than the latter(P﹤0.01),and its systolic pressure and oxyhemoglobin saturation were significantly higher than the latter(P﹤0.01).CONCLUSION The cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument has the good superiority and definite resuscitation effect during the long cardiopulmonary resuscitation,is worth in being applied in clinic.
分 类 号:R541[医药卫生—心血管疾病]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.220.9.180