两种心肺复苏方案的院内急救效果对比研究  

Comparative study on the effect of two different emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation scheme in hospital

作　　者：薛乾隆[1] 李琳琳[1] 陈艳梅[1] 高继英[1] 张秀谦[1] 

机构地区：[1]河北北方学院附属第一医院急诊科,河北张家口075000

出　　处：《海南医学》2014年第16期2359-2362,共4页Hainan Medical Journal

基　　金：张家口市2012年度科学技术研究与发展指导计划(编号:1221078D)

摘　　要：目的探讨两种不同的方案在院内心跳呼吸骤停时实施心肺复苏的效果。方法对60例心跳呼吸骤停患者实施两种不同心肺复苏方案,运用心肺复苏机复苏的患者为机控组;实施人工心肺复苏术的患者为人工组,每组各30例。两组患者均采用相同的复苏药物和电击除颤等抢救措施。比较两组患者实施心肺复苏方案10 min及30 min后的体温、红细胞压积、血红蛋白浓度、动脉血气分析及疗效。结果两组患者的体温、红细胞压积、血红蛋白浓度及二氧化碳分压在心肺复苏后在各时间点的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);心肺复苏10 min后,机控组患者动脉血的pH值、氧分压、碳酸氢根离子以及血氧饱和度均优于人工组(P<0.05);但心肺复苏30 min后,两组患者的以上各指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);人工组患者的心肺复苏时间为(46.8±5.2)min,机控组为(45.6±5.5)min,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);心肺复苏10 min后,人工组4例有效,而机控组15例有效,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与人工标准心肺复苏术相比,采用心肺复苏机的心肺复苏的方式在循环的支持方面更加具有优势,可以有效地提升心肺复苏的成功率。Objective To explore the effect of two different cardiopulmonary resuscitation schemes on patients with cardiac respiratory arrest in hospital. Methods Sixty patients with cardiac respiratory arrest were implemented with two different cardiopulmonary resuscitation （CPR） schemes. CPR machine was used in mechanical control group （30 cases） and artificial group underwent artificial cardiopulmonary resuscitation （30 cases）. The two groups were treated with same drugs and defibrillation recovery and other rescue measures. After 10 min and 30 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, body temperature, hematocrit, hemoglobin concentration, arterial blood gas analysis and curative effect were compared between the two groups. Results After cardiopulmonary resuscitation, there was no statistically significant difference in body temperature, hematocrit, hemoglobin concentration and partial pressure of carbon dioxide in each time point between the two groups （P〉0.05）. At 10 min after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the arterial blood pH value, oxygen partial pressure, bicarbonate ion and oxygen saturation in mechanical control group were better than those in artificial group （P〈0.05）, however, there was no statistical difference at 30 min after CPR （〉0.05）. There was no statistical difference in duration of CPR between mechanical control group （45.6±5.5） min and artificial group （46.8±5.2） min （P〉0.05）. At 10 rain after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, there were 4 effective cases in artificial group while 15 effective cases in mechanical control group, with statistical difference （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Compared with artificial standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation machine shows more advantages in circulation, which can effectively improve the success rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

关 键 词：心肺复苏 心跳呼吸骤停 动脉血气分析 

分 类 号：R605.974[医药卫生—急诊医学]