Donnelly P, Assar D, Lester C
Centre for Applied Public Health Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Resuscitation. 2000 Aug 1;45(3):195-9. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(00)00186-6.
This paper reports on a randomised controlled trial comparing the acquisition and retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills by lay persons trained in three variations of basic life support. Training was provided either in 1992 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines, or in the 1997 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advisory Statement (adopted with minor revisions as 1998 ERC guidelines), and an American Heart Association 'call first' version of the 1997 ILCOR statement. Evaluation of manikin CPR using the established Cardiff tests (CARE and VIDRAP) showed that 51% of those trained in the current ILCOR guidelines performed effectively compared with 38% trained in the ERC 1992 guidelines and 25% trained in the 'call first' variation (P<0.01). Whilst the current ERC and ILCOR guidelines appeared easiest to learn, retention at 6 months was poor (14% effective) irrespective of method.
本文报道了一项随机对照试验，该试验比较了接受三种基本生命支持变体培训的非专业人员对心肺复苏（CPR）技能的掌握和保持情况。培训依据1992年欧洲复苏委员会（ERC）指南、1997年国际复苏联合委员会（ILCOR）咨询声明（稍作修订后作为1998年ERC指南采用）以及美国心脏协会1997年ILCOR声明的“先打电话”版本进行。使用既定的加的夫测试（CARE和VIDRAP）对模拟人CPR进行评估，结果显示，接受当前ILCOR指南培训的人员中有51%操作有效，相比之下，接受1992年ERC指南培训的人员为38%，接受“先打电话”变体培训的人员为25%（P<0.01）。虽然当前的ERC和ILCOR指南似乎最容易学习，但无论采用何种方法，6个月后的保持率都很低（14%有效）。
