萨勃心肺复苏机抢救心脏骤停患者的效果  

Therapeutic effect of Thumper cardiopulmorary resuscitation system in the emergency treatment with sudden cardiac arrest

作　　者：龚黎[1] 孙宝玲 赵亚良[1] 樊颖[3] 吴婷婷[1] 陈亚强[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军第323医院急诊科,陕西西安710054 [2]解放军第518医院影像科,陕西西安710031 [3]空军装备研究院门诊部,北京100085

出　　处：《心脏杂志》2016年第2期194-196,共3页Chinese Heart Journal

摘　　要：目的评价心肺复苏机抢救心脏骤停患者的治疗效果。方法将院内抢救的247例心脏骤停患者随机分为两组,分别用萨勃机进行心肺复苏(萨勃机组,n=112例)和采用标准心肺复苏法进行复苏(标准复苏组,n=135例),除颤、药物应用等基本相同。比较两种方法对心肺复苏成功率及存活率的影响。结果两组患者抢救开始前的临床状况(年龄、性别、心率、呼吸频率、血压、血氧饱和度和病因类别等均无显著差异,萨勃机组复苏成功率(46.4%)和患者存活率(16.1%)均显著高于标准复苏组(分别是11.1%和4.4%),差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论萨勃机急救心脏骤停患者的效果优于标准心肺复苏法。AIM To evaluate therapeutic effect of Thumper cardiopulmonary resuscitation system （TCPR） （an automatic mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation device） in the emergency treatment of cardiopulmorary resuscitation （CPR）. METHODS To adopt a randomized controlled trial design, 247 cases with sudden cardiac arrest were randomly divided into two groups ： TCPR group （ use of TCPR, n = 112） and traditional human/manual CPR group （HCPR, n = 135）. RESULTS Clinical reference （ age, sex, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood presure, oxygen saturation and cause categories） of the two groups were comparable. Success rate and survival rate of the TCPR group were higher than the HCPR group （respectively, 46.4% vs. 11.1% ; 16. 1% vs. 4.4%, all P 〈0. 05）. CONCLUSION Thera- peutic effects of TCPR used during CPR were better than results with HCPR.

关 键 词：心脏骤停 心肺复苏 心肺复苏机 萨勃 标准心肺复苏 效果 

分 类 号：R654.1[医药卫生—外科学]