Deschilder Koen, De Vos Rien, Stockman Willem
Education and Research, Paramedical Assistance, Roeselare, Belgium.
Resuscitation. 2007 Jul;74(1):113-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.12.004. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
Recent cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines changed the compression:ventilation ratio in 30:2.
To compare the quality of chest compressions and exhaustion using the ratio 30:2 versus 15:2.
A prospective, randomised crossover design was used. Subjects were recruited from the H.-Hart hospital personnel and the University College Katho for nurses and bio-engineering. Each participant performed 5min of CPR using either the ratio 30:2 or 15:2, then after a 15min rest switched to the other ratio. The data were collected using a questionnaire and an adult resuscitation manikin. The outcomes included exhaustion as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) score, depth of chest compressions, rates of chest compressions, total number of chest compressions, number of correct chest compressions and incomplete release. Data were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. The results are presented as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR).
One hundred and thirty subjects completed the study. The exhaustion-score using the VAS was 5.9 (IQR 2.25) for the ratio 30:2 and 4.5 (IQR 2.88) for the ratio 15:2 (P<0.001). The compression depth was 40.5mm (IQR 15.75) for 30:2 and 41mm (IQR 15.5) for 15:2 (P=0.5). The compression rate was 118beats/min (IQR 29) for 30:2 and 115beats/min (IQR 32) for 15:2 (P=0.02). The total number of compressions/5min was 347 (IQR 79) for 30:2 and 244compressions/5min (IQR 72.5) for 15:2 (P<0.001). The number of correct compression/5min was 61.5 (IQR 211.75) for 30:2 and 55.5 (IQR 142.75) for 15:2 (P=0.001). The relative risk (RR) of incomplete release in 30:2 versus 15:2 was 1.087 (95% CI=0.633-1.867).
Although the 30:2 ratio is rated to be more exhausting, the 30:2 technique delivers more chest compressions and the quality of chest compressions remains unchanged.
近期心肺复苏(CPR)指南将按压与通气比例改为30:2。
比较30:2与15:2两种比例下胸外按压的质量及疲劳程度。
采用前瞻性随机交叉设计。研究对象从H.-Hart医院工作人员以及天主教大学学院招募护士和生物工程专业人员。每位参与者使用30:2或15:2的比例进行5分钟的心肺复苏,然后休息15分钟后切换至另一种比例。通过问卷和成人复苏模拟人收集数据。结果包括通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分测量的疲劳程度、胸外按压深度、胸外按压频率、胸外按压总数、正确胸外按压次数以及按压未完全松开情况。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较数据。结果以中位数和四分位数间距(IQR)表示。
130名受试者完成了研究。30:2比例下VAS疲劳评分中位数为5.9(IQR 2.25),15:2比例下为4.5(IQR 2.88)(P<0.001)。30:2比例下按压深度为40.5毫米(IQR 15.75),15:2比例下为41毫米(IQR 15.5)(P=0.5)。30:2比例下按压频率为118次/分钟(IQR 29),15:2比例下为115次/分钟(IQR 32)(P=0.02)。30:2比例下5分钟内按压总数为347次(IQR 79),15:2比例下为244次/5分钟(IQR 72.5)(P<0.001)。30:2比例下5分钟内正确按压次数为61.5次(IQR 211.75),15:2比例下为55.5次(IQR 142.75)(P=0.001)。30:2与15:2比例下按压未完全松开的相对风险(RR)为1.087(95%CI=0.633-1.867)。
尽管30:2的比例被认为更易使人疲劳,但30:2的技术能进行更多的胸外按压且胸外按压质量保持不变。