Suppr超能文献

胸壁减压不完全:急救医疗服务人员心肺复苏操作的临床评估及替代手动胸外按压-减压技术的评估

Incomplete chest wall decompression: a clinical evaluation of CPR performance by EMS personnel and assessment of alternative manual chest compression-decompression techniques.

作者信息

Aufderheide Tom P, Pirrallo Ronald G, Yannopoulos Demetris, Klein John P, von Briesen Chris, Sparks Christopher W, Deja Kimberly A, Conrad Craig J, Kitscha David J, Provo Terry A, Lurie Keith G

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200W. Wisconsin Avenue, FEH Room 1870, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2005 Mar;64(3):353-62. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.10.007.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Complete chest wall recoil improves hemodynamics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by generating relatively negative intrathoracic pressure and thus draws venous blood back to the heart, providing cardiac preload prior to the next chest compression phase.

OBJECTIVE

Phase I was an observational case series to evaluate the quality of chest wall recoil during CPR performed by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel on patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Phase II was designed to assess the quality of CPR delivered by EMS personnel using an electronic test manikin. The goal was to determine if a change in CPR technique or hand position would improve complete chest wall recoil, while maintaining adequate duty cycle, compression depth, and correct hand position placement. Standard manual CPR and three alternative manual CPR approaches were assessed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Phase I--The clinical observational study was performed by an independent observer noting incomplete chest wall decompression and correlating that observation with electronically measured airway pressures during CPR in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Rescuers were observed to maintain some residual and continuous pressure on the chest wall during the decompression phase of CPR, preventing full chest wall recoil, at some time during resuscitative efforts in 6 (46%) of 13 consecutive adults (average +/- S.D. age 63 +/-5.8 years). Airway pressures were consistently positive during the decompression phase (>0 mmHg) during those observations. Phase II: This randomized prospective trial was performed on an electronic test manikin. Thirty EMS providers (14 EMT-Basics, 5 EMT-Intermediates, and 11 EMT-Paramedics), with an average age +/- S.D. of 32 +/- 8 years and 6.5 +/- 4.2 years of EMS experience, performed 3 min of CPR on a Laerdal Skill Reporter CPR manikin using the Standard Hand Position followed by 3 min of CPR (in random order) using three alternative CPR techniques: (1) Two-Finger Fulcrum Technique--lifting the heel of the hand slightly but completely off the chest during the decompression phase of CPR using the thumb and little finger as a fulcrum; (2) Five-Finger Fulcrum Technique--lifting the heel of the hand slightly but completely off the chest during the decompression phase of CPR using all five fingers as a fulcrum; and (3) Hands-Off Technique--lifting the heel and all fingers of the hand slightly but completely off the chest during the decompression phase of CPR. These EMS personnel did not know the purpose of the studies prior to or during this investigation. Adequate compression depth was poor for all hand positions tested and ranged only from 29.9 to 48.5% of all compressions. When compared with the Standard Hand Position, the Hands-Off Technique decreased mean compression duty cycle from 46.9 +/- 6.4% to 33.3 +/- 4.6%, (P < 0.0001) but achieved the highest rate of complete chest wall recoil (95.0% versus 16.3%, P < 0.0001) and was 129 times more likely to provide complete chest wall recoil (OR: 129.0; CI: 43.4-382.0). There were no significant differences in accuracy of hand placement, depth of compression, or reported increase in fatigue or discomfort with its use compared with the Standard Hand Position.

CONCLUSIONS

Incomplete chest wall decompression was observed at some time during resuscitative efforts in 6 (46%) of 13 consecutive adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. The Hands-Off Technique decreased compression duty cycle but was 129 times more likely to provide complete chest wall recoil (OR: 129.0; CI: 43.4-382.0) compared to the Standard Hand Position without differences in accuracy of hand placement, depth of compression, or reported increase in fatigue or discomfort with its use. All forms of manual CPR tested (including the Standard Hand Position) in professional EMS rescuers using a recording manikin produced an inadequate depth of compression more than half the time. These data support development and testing of more effective means to deliver manual as well as mechanical CPR.

摘要

背景

完全胸壁回弹通过产生相对负压的胸腔内压力,改善心肺复苏(CPR)期间的血流动力学,从而将静脉血回吸至心脏,为下一个胸外按压阶段提供心脏前负荷。

目的

第一阶段为观察性病例系列研究,旨在评估紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员对院外心脏骤停患者进行心肺复苏时胸壁回弹的质量。第二阶段旨在评估EMS人员使用电子测试人体模型进行心肺复苏的质量。目标是确定心肺复苏技术或手部位置的改变是否能改善完全胸壁回弹,同时保持足够的按压比例、按压深度和正确的手部位置。评估了标准徒手心肺复苏和三种替代徒手心肺复苏方法。

方法与结果

第一阶段——该临床观察性研究由一名独立观察者进行,记录胸壁不完全减压情况,并将该观察结果与成年院外心脏骤停患者心肺复苏期间电子测量的气道压力相关联。在连续13名成年人(平均年龄±标准差63±5.8岁)的复苏过程中,观察到6名(46%)救援人员在心肺复苏的减压阶段对胸壁保持了一些残余且持续的压力,阻止了胸壁完全回弹。在这些观察期间,减压阶段气道压力始终为正(>0 mmHg)。第二阶段:该随机前瞻性试验在电子测试人体模型上进行。30名EMS提供者(14名急救医疗技术员基础水平、5名急救医疗技术员中级水平和11名急救医疗技术员高级水平),平均年龄±标准差为32±8岁,有6.5±4.2年的EMS工作经验,在Laerdal Skill Reporter心肺复苏人体模型上使用标准手部位置进行3分钟心肺复苏,然后(按随机顺序)使用三种替代心肺复苏技术进行3分钟心肺复苏:(1)两指支点技术——在心肺复苏的减压阶段,以拇指和小指为支点,将手掌根部微微但完全抬离胸部;(2)五指支点技术——在心肺复苏的减压阶段,以全部五根手指为支点,将手掌根部微微但完全抬离胸部;(3)放手技术——在心肺复苏的减压阶段,将手掌根部和所有手指微微但完全抬离胸部。这些EMS人员在本次调查之前或期间都不知道研究目的。所有测试的手部位置的按压深度均不足,仅占所有按压的29.9%至48.5%。与标准手部位置相比,放手技术使平均按压比例从46.9±6.4%降至33.3±4.6%(P<0.0001),但实现了最高的完全胸壁回弹率(95.0%对16.3%,P<0.0001),提供完全胸壁回弹的可能性是标准手部位置的129倍(比值比:129.0;可信区间:43.4 - 382.0)。与标准手部位置相比,手部放置的准确性、按压深度或使用时报告的疲劳或不适增加方面没有显著差异。

结论

在连续13例成年院外心脏骤停患者的复苏过程中,观察到6例(46%)在某个时间点存在胸壁不完全减压情况。放手技术降低了按压比例,但与标准手部位置相比,提供完全胸壁回弹的可能性高129倍(比值比:129.0;可信区间:43.4 - 382.0),在手部放置准确性、按压深度或使用时报告的疲劳或不适增加方面没有差异。在使用记录人体模型的专业EMS救援人员中,所有测试的徒手心肺复苏形式(包括标准手部位置)超过一半时间产生的按压深度不足。这些数据支持开发和测试更有效的徒手及机械心肺复苏方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验