Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪与人工心肺复苏效果比较

摘要

目的 比较使用Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪和人工心肺复苏的效果以评价Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪在临床应用的价值.方法 选择122例院内发生心跳呼吸骤停患者随机分为试验组和对照组,试验组使用Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪,对照组采用人工标准心肺复苏进行心肺复苏.比较两组患者的循环、呼吸恢复情况,复苏成功率及24 h存活率.结果 试验组患者平均动脉压和脉搏氧饱和度水平高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);试验组自主循环恢复时间明显短于对照组[(6.1±1.8)min和(15.2±2.3)min,P＜0.05];试验组复苏成功率高于对照组(70.8%和33.3%,P＜0.01);试验组24 h存活率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(35.4%和23.6%,P＜0.05).结论 Autopulse(zoll)型心肺复苏仪在循环、呼吸恢复情况,复苏成功率及24 h存活率方面优于人工心肺复苏.%Objective Compare the use of Autopulse ( zoll ) type of cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument with the manual standard CPR technique to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Autopulse ( zoll) type CPR device. Methods 122 cardiopulmonary arrest patients occurred in hospital were carried out CPR with Autopulse ( zoll) type instrument ( named test group ) and with manual CPR technique ( named control group ) respectively. Compare the circulation, respiration, CPR success rate and 24h survival rate of the patients in the two groups. Results Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation levels of the test group were higher than those of the control group, with statistical significance ( P < 0. 05 ); Spontaneous circulation recovery time in the test group was less than that of the control group [ ( 6. 1 ± 1. 8 ) minutes vs ( 15. 2 ± 2. 3 ) minutes, P < 0. 05 ]; CPR success rate of the test group was higher than that of the control group ( 70. 8% vs 33. 3% , P<0.0l); 24 h survival rate of the test group was higher than that of the control group, with statistical significance ( 35. 4% vs 23. 6% , P <0. 05 ). Conclusion CPR instrument had superiority over manual CPR technique and may be an alternative to manual CPR new instrument. It should be promoted in clinical practice.