Suppr超能文献

欧洲复苏委员会(ERC)复苏指南的变化对无血流时间和心肺复苏质量的影响:一项针对人体模型的随机对照研究

The effects of changes to the ERC resuscitation guidelines on no flow time and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a randomised controlled study on manikins.

作者信息

Jäntti H, Kuisma M, Uusaro A

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 1777, FIN-70210 Kuopio, Finland.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2007 Nov;75(2):338-44. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.05.006. Epub 2007 Jul 12.

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines changed in 2005. We investigated the impact of these changes on no flow time and on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Simulated cardiac arrest (CA) scenarios were managed randomly in manikins using ERC 2000 or 2005 guidelines. Pairs of paramedics/paramedic students treated 34 scenarios with 10min of continuous ventricular fibrillation. The rhythm was analysed and defibrillation shocks were delivered with a semi-automatic defibrillator, and breathing was assisted with a bag-valve-mask; no intravenous medication was given. Time factors related to human intervention and time factors related to device, rhythm analysis, charging and defibrillation were analysed for their contribution to no flow time (time without chest compression). Chest compression quality was also analysed.

RESULTS

No flow time (mean+/-S.D.) was 66+/-3% of CA time with ERC 2000 and 32+/-4% with ERC 2005 guidelines (P<0.001). Human factor interventions occupied 114+/-4s (ERC 2000) versus 107+/-4s (ERC 2005) during 600-s scenarios (P=0.237). Device factor interventions took longer using ERC 2000 guidelines: 290+/-19s versus 92+/-15s (P<0.001). The total number of chest compressions was higher with ERC 2005 guidelines (808+/-92s versus 458+/-90s, P<0.001), but the quality of CPR did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a single shock sequence with guidelines 2005 has decreased the no flow time during CPR when compared with guidelines 2000 with multiple shocks.

摘要

研究目的

欧洲复苏委员会(ERC)指南于2005年进行了修订。我们调查了这些修订对无血流时间及心肺复苏(CPR)质量的影响。

材料与方法

使用ERC 2000或2005指南在人体模型上随机处理模拟心脏骤停(CA)场景。成对的护理人员/护理专业学生处理了34个持续10分钟心室颤动的场景。使用半自动除颤器分析心律并进行除颤电击,并用袋阀面罩辅助呼吸;未给予静脉用药。分析与人为干预相关的时间因素以及与设备、心律分析、充电和除颤相关的时间因素对无血流时间(无胸外按压时间)的影响。还分析了胸外按压质量。

结果

按照ERC 2000指南,无血流时间(平均值±标准差)占CA时间的66±3%,而按照ERC 2005指南为32±4%(P<0.001)。在600秒的场景中,人为因素干预时间在ERC 2000时为114±4秒,在ERC 2005时为107±4秒(P = 0.237)。按照ERC 2000指南,设备因素干预耗时更长:290±19秒对92±15秒(P<0.001)。按照ERC 2005指南,胸外按压总数更高(808±92秒对458±90秒,P<0.001),但两组间CPR质量无差异。

结论

与2000年指南的多次电击相比,采用2005年指南的单次电击序列可减少CPR期间的无血流时间。

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