• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在模拟救援艇转运心脏骤停患者过程中,手动心肺复苏与机械心肺复苏的效果比较。

The Performance of Manual Versus Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During a Simulated Rescue Boat Transport in Cardiac Arrest.

机构信息

Los Angeles County Fire Department EMS Bureau, Monterey Park.

Los Angeles County Fire Department EMS Bureau, Monterey Park.

出版信息

Air Med J. 2021 Jan-Feb;40(1):50-53. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Nov 27.

DOI:10.1016/j.amj.2020.10.007
PMID:33455626
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Catalina Island's Casino Point is a popular scuba diving site and is located 11.6 nautical miles from the University of Southern California Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber. We sought to determine the best method of providing high-performance CPR during a dive emergency, comparing manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with 2 mechanical compression devices during a simulated boat transport.

METHODS

This study was performed on a Los Angeles County Lifeguard rescue boat using 3 manikins and comparing 3 arms: 1) manual compressions with 2 rescuers, 2) mechanical CPR with the Autopulse (ZOLL, Chelmsford, MA), and 3) mechanical CPR with the LUCAS III (Stryker, Kalamazoo, WI). CPR data were collected using ZOLL Stat Padz with an accelerometer connected to ZOLL X Series monitor/defibrillators. The manikins were filmed using mounted cameras. Data were reviewed using ZOLL Case Review.

RESULTS

In video footage, all 3 arms appeared to provide high-performance CPR during the 30-minute transport. The compression fractions for manual CPR, the Autopulse, and the LUCAS were 99.57%, 95.51%, and 98.4%, respectively. Engine noise (94.6-101.3 dB) prevented the manual arm from hearing their audio prompts, and motion caused significant artifact on the accelerometers.

CONCLUSION

High-performance CPR can successfully be performed on a rescue boat by either manual or mechanical methods. Mechanical CPR offered many logistical advantages.

摘要

目的

卡特琳娜岛的 Casino Point 是一个很受欢迎的水肺潜水地点,距离南加州大学卡特琳娜高压舱 11.6 海里。我们旨在确定在潜水紧急情况下提供高性能心肺复苏术的最佳方法,比较手动心肺复苏术(CPR)与 2 种机械压缩设备在模拟船只运输中的效果。

方法

这项研究在洛杉矶县救生员救援船上进行,使用 3 个人体模型,并比较 3 种方法:1)由 2 名救援人员进行手动按压,2)使用 Autopulse(ZOLL,马萨诸塞州切姆斯福德)进行机械 CPR,3)使用 LUCAS III(Stryker,密歇根州卡拉马祖)进行机械 CPR。使用连接到 ZOLL X 系列监测除颤器的加速度计的 ZOLL Stat Padz 收集 CPR 数据。使用安装的摄像头拍摄人体模型。使用 ZOLL Case Review 查看数据。

结果

在视频中,所有 3 种方法在 30 分钟的运输过程中似乎都提供了高性能的 CPR。手动 CPR、Autopulse 和 LUCAS 的压缩分数分别为 99.57%、95.51%和 98.4%。发动机噪音(94.6-101.3 dB)阻止了手动方法听取其音频提示,运动导致加速度计上出现明显的干扰。

结论

通过手动或机械方法都可以在救援船上成功进行高性能心肺复苏术。机械 CPR 具有许多后勤优势。

相似文献

1
The Performance of Manual Versus Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During a Simulated Rescue Boat Transport in Cardiac Arrest.在模拟救援艇转运心脏骤停患者过程中,手动心肺复苏与机械心肺复苏的效果比较。
Air Med J. 2021 Jan-Feb;40(1):50-53. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
2
Manual versus Mechanical Delivery of High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on a River-Based Fire Rescue Boat.手动与机械心肺复苏在河上消防救援船上的应用比较。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2022 Oct;37(5):630-637. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X22001042. Epub 2022 Jul 25.
3
Use of i-Gel Supraglottic Airway in a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation During Boat Rescue Transport by Los Angeles County Fire Lifeguard Division: A Proof-of-Concept Study.在洛杉矶县消防救生员分部的船只救援运输过程中,对模拟心脏骤停复苏期间使用 i-Gel 声门上气道:概念验证研究。
Air Med J. 2024 Jan-Feb;43(1):34-36. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2023.09.008. Epub 2023 Oct 11.
4
The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.LUCAS在院外心脏骤停场景中的疗效:一项交叉模拟人研究。
West J Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;18(3):437-445. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.1.32575. Epub 2017 Mar 14.
5
Chest Compression Fraction between Mechanical Compressions on a Reducible Stretcher and Manual Compressions on a Standard Stretcher during Transport in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests: The Ambulance Stretcher Innovation of Asian Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ASIA-CPR) Pilot Trial.院外心脏骤停转运期间可折叠担架上机械按压与标准担架上手动按压的胸部按压分数:亚洲心肺复苏(ASIA-CPR)试点试验的救护车担架创新研究
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Sep-Oct;21(5):636-644. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2017.1317892. Epub 2017 May 3.
6
LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study.与手动心肺复苏相比,在直升机救援中,LUCAS 更有效——一项前瞻性、随机、交叉模拟人研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Feb;31(2):384-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.018. Epub 2012 Sep 20.
7
Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions.在地面救护车转运条件下机械胸外按压心肺复苏与徒手胸外按压心肺复苏的比较
Acute Card Care. 2013 Mar;15(1):1-6. doi: 10.3109/17482941.2012.735675.
8
Quality of mechanical, manual standard and active compression-decompression CPR on the arrest site and during transport in a manikin model.在人体模型上,对骤停部位以及转运过程中的机械心肺复苏、手动标准心肺复苏和主动按压-减压心肺复苏的质量。
Resuscitation. 1997 Jun;34(3):235-42. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01087-8.
9
Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority.机械胸外按压设备 AutoPulse 和 LUCAS 在心脏骤停中的安全性:一项非劣效性随机临床试验。
Eur Heart J. 2017 Oct 21;38(40):3006-3013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318.
10
Incomplete chest wall decompression: a clinical evaluation of CPR performance by EMS personnel and assessment of alternative manual chest compression-decompression techniques.胸壁减压不完全:急救医疗服务人员心肺复苏操作的临床评估及替代手动胸外按压-减压技术的评估
Resuscitation. 2005 Mar;64(3):353-62. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.10.007.

引用本文的文献

1
Discrepancies between physician review and algorithmic detection of the zoll rescuenet post-cardiac arrest case review.心脏骤停后病例回顾中,医生评估与Zoll Rescuenet算法检测之间的差异。
Resusc Plus. 2025 May 22;24:100989. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100989. eCollection 2025 Jul.