Suppr超能文献

两指法在单人复苏婴儿模型 CPR 中优于两指法。

Two-thumb technique is superior to two-finger technique during lone rescuer infant manikin CPR.

机构信息

Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2010 Jun;81(6):712-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.029. Epub 2010 Mar 12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Infant CPR guidelines recommend two-finger chest compression with a lone rescuer and two-thumb with two rescuers. Two-thumb provides better chest compression but is perceived to be associated with increased ventilation hands-off time. We hypothesized that lone rescuer two-thumb CPR is associated with increased ventilation cycle time, decreased ventilation quality and fewer chest compressions compared to two-finger CPR in an infant manikin model.

DESIGN

Crossover observational study randomizing 34 healthcare providers to perform 2 min CPR at a compression rate of 100 min(-1) using a 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio comparing two-thumb vs. two-finger techniques.

METHODS

A Laerdal Baby ALS Trainer manikin was modified to digitally record compression rate, compression depth and compression pressure and ventilation cycle time (two mouth-to-mouth breaths). Manikin chest rise with breaths was video recorded and later reviewed by two blinded CPR instructors for percent effective breaths. Data (mean+/-SD) were analyzed using a two-tailed paired t-test. Significance was defined qualitatively as p< or =0.05.

RESULT

Mean % effective breaths were 90+/-18.6% in two-thumb and 88.9+/-21.1% in two-finger, p=0.65. Mean time (s) to deliver two mouth-to-mouth breaths was 7.6+/-1.6 in two-thumb and 7.0+/-1.5 in two-finger, p<0.0001. Mean delivered compressions per minute were 87+/-11 in two-thumb and 92+/-12 in two-finger, p=0.0005. Two-thumb resulted in significantly higher compression depth and compression pressure compared to the two-finger technique.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers required 0.6s longer time to deliver two breaths during two-thumb lone rescuer infant CPR, but there was no significant difference in percent effective breaths delivered between the two techniques. Two-thumb CPR had 4 fewer delivered compressions per minute, which may be offset by far more effective compression depth and compression pressure compared to two-finger technique.

摘要

目的

婴儿心肺复苏指南建议单人施救者使用双指进行胸外按压,双人施救者使用双拇指进行胸外按压。双拇指可提供更好的胸外按压效果,但被认为与增加通气手离开时间有关。我们假设,在婴儿模型中,与双指 CPR 相比,单人施救者的双拇指 CPR 与通气周期时间延长、通气质量下降以及胸外按压次数减少有关。

设计

交叉观察研究,将 34 名医疗保健提供者随机分配,在压缩率为 100 次/分钟(min(-1))的情况下,使用 30:2 的压缩:通气比进行 2 分钟的 CPR,比较双拇指与双指技术。

方法

对 Laerdal Baby ALS 训练器模型进行了修改,以数字方式记录压缩率、压缩深度和压缩压力以及通气周期时间(两次口对口呼吸)。通过视频记录模型胸部随呼吸的起伏,并由两名盲法心肺复苏指导员审查,以评估有效呼吸的百分比。使用双尾配对 t 检验分析数据(平均值+/-标准差)。有意义的结果定义为 p<或=0.05。

结果

双拇指的平均有效呼吸百分比为 90+/-18.6%,双指为 88.9+/-21.1%,p=0.65。双拇指完成两次口对口呼吸的平均时间(s)为 7.6+/-1.6,双指为 7.0+/-1.5,p<0.0001。双拇指每分钟提供的压缩次数为 87+/-11 次,双指为 92+/-12 次,p=0.0005。与双指技术相比,双拇指技术可产生明显更高的压缩深度和压缩压力。

结论

单人施救者在进行双拇指婴儿心肺复苏时,完成两次呼吸需要多 0.6 秒的时间,但两种技术之间的有效呼吸百分比没有显著差异。双拇指 CPR 每分钟提供的压缩次数减少了 4 次,但与双指技术相比,压缩深度和压力的效果要明显得多,可能会得到弥补。

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