Suppr超能文献

提供最佳的胸部按压质量:标准心肺复苏术与旁观者复苏模型中的仅胸部按压比较。

Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model.

机构信息

Medical Simulation and Emergency Management Research Group, University Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Academic Simulation Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and Vienna Hospital Association, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 13;15(2):e0228702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228702. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY

Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm.

METHODS

With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs.

RESULTS

The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21-53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.

摘要

研究目的

旁观者启动的基础生命支持(BLS)治疗院前心搏骤停可提高生存率,但由于恐惧和缺乏知识,常未实施。简单的流程图可提高动机和操作质量。此外,指南确实推荐调度员协助的旁观者复苏使用仅胸外按压(CC)算法,这可能导致疲劳增加和按压深度丧失。因此,我们想验证这样一个假设,即在流程图辅助的标准复苏算法中,CC 更能正确实施,而不是仅 CC 算法。

方法

使用模拟人模型,将 84 名非专业人员随机分为流程图辅助标准复苏组或仅 CC 复苏组,每组进行 5 分钟复苏。主要结局是 CC 的总数。

结果

仅 CC 组和标准组的正确 CC 总数无显著差异(63 [±81] 次与 79 [±86] 次;p = 0.394;差异 95%CI:21-53)。仅 CC 组的总交接时间明显低于标准 BLS 组。正确 CC 的相对数量(达到 5-6cm 的总 CC 数的分数)和 BLS 后疲劳程度在两组间无显著差异。

结论

与仅 CC 复苏相比,标准 BLS 并未导致正确实施的 CC 数量增加,且表现出明显更多的交接时间。两组 CC 率均较低,表明在 BLS 培训中需要更加注重操作。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4083/7017996/e39d173afddf/pone.0228702.g001.jpg

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