Suppr超能文献

单人使用的手动动力机械复苏设备:一项随机对照假人研究。

A manually powered mechanical resuscitation device used by a single rescuer: a randomised controlled manikin study.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Surgical Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2011 Jul;82(7):913-9. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.02.026. Epub 2011 Mar 27.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The goal of this randomized, open, controlled crossover manikin study was to compare the performance of "Animax", a manually operated hand-powered mechanical resuscitation device (MRD) to standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS).

METHODS

Following training, 80 medical students performed either standard BLS or used an MRD for 12 min in random order. We compared the quality of chest compressions (effective compressions, compression depth and rate, absolute hands-off time, hand position, decompression), and of ventilation including the number of gastric inflations. An effective compression was defined as a compression performed with correct depth, hand position and decompression.

RESULTS

The use of the MRD resulted in a significantly higher number of effective compressions compared to standard BLS (67 ± 34 vs. 41 ± 34%, p<0.001). In a comparison with standard BLS, the use of the MRD resulted in less absolute hands-off time (264 ± 57 vs. 79 ± 40 s, p<0.001) and in a higher minute-volume (1.86 ± 0.7 vs. 1.62 ± 0.7 l, p=0.020). However, ventilation volumes were below the 2005 ERC guidelines for both methods. Gastric inflations occurred only in 0 ± 0.1% with the MRD compared to 3 ± 7% during standard BLS (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Single rescuer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation with the manually operated MRD was superior to standard BLS regarding chest compressions in this simulation study. The MRD delivered a higher minute-volume but did not achieve the recommended minimal volume. Further clinical studies are needed to test the MRD's safety and efficacy in patients.

摘要

目的

本随机、开放、对照模拟研究的目的是比较手动操作的手动复苏器(MRD)与标准单人基础生命支持(BLS)在性能上的差异。

方法

在接受培训后,80 名医学生以随机顺序分别使用标准 BLS 或 MRD 进行 12 分钟的操作。我们比较了胸外按压的质量(有效按压、按压深度和频率、绝对脱手时间、手的位置、减压)和通气,包括胃充气的次数。有效按压是指以正确的深度、手的位置和减压进行的按压。

结果

与标准 BLS 相比,使用 MRD 可显著增加有效按压的次数(67 ± 34 比 41 ± 34%,p<0.001)。与标准 BLS 相比,使用 MRD 可显著减少绝对脱手时间(264 ± 57 比 79 ± 40 s,p<0.001)和提高分钟通气量(1.86 ± 0.7 比 1.62 ± 0.7 l,p=0.020)。然而,两种方法的通气量均低于 2005 年 ERC 指南的推荐值。使用 MRD 时,胃充气仅为 0 ± 0.1%,而标准 BLS 时为 3 ± 7%(p<0.001)。

结论

在这项模拟研究中,单人心肺复苏使用手动操作的 MRD 比标准 BLS 在胸外按压方面更具优势。MRD 可提供更高的分钟通气量,但未达到推荐的最小通气量。需要进一步的临床研究来测试 MRD 在患者中的安全性和有效性。

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