Suppr超能文献

常规和实验性心肺复苏方法下人体的血流动力学

Hemodynamics in humans during conventional and experimental methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

作者信息

Swenson R D, Weaver W D, Niskanen R A, Martin J, Dahlberg S

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98104.

出版信息

Circulation. 1988 Sep;78(3):630-9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.78.3.630.

Abstract

High-fidelity hemodynamic recordings of aortic and right atrial pressures and the coronary perfusion gradient (the difference between aortic and atrial pressure) were made in nine patients during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Findings during conventional manual CPR were compared with those during high-impulse CPR (rate, 120 cycles/min with a shorter compression:relaxation ratio) as well as during pneumatic vest CPR with and without simultaneous ventilation and abdominal binding. Aortic peak pressure during conventional CPR averaged 61 +/- 29 mm Hg but varied widely (range, 39-126 mm Hg) among patients. Although the magnitude of improvement was modest, the high-impulse method was the only technique tested that significantly elevated both aortic peak pressure and the coronary perfusion gradient during cardiac arrest. During conventional CPR, aortic pressure rose from 61 +/- 29 to 80 +/- 39 mm Hg during high-impulse CPR, and the gradient rose from 9 +/- 11 to 14 +/- 15 mm Hg, respectively; p less than 0.01. The pneumatic vest method significantly improved peak aortic pressure but not the coronary perfusion gradient. Simultaneous ventilation and chest compression created high end-expiratory pressure and lowered the coronary perfusion gradient. Abdominal binding had no significant hemodynamic effects. This evaluation of experimental resuscitation methods in humans shows that the high-impulse chest compression method augments aortic pressure over levels achieved during conventional CPR methods; however, the improvement in pressure is modest and may not be clinically important. Simultaneous ventilation as well as abdominal binding during CPR were associated with no benefit; in fact, simultaneous ventilation appears to adversely affect cardiac perfusion and, therefore, should not be used during clinical resuscitation.

摘要

在9名患者进行心肺复苏(CPR)期间,对主动脉和右心房压力以及冠状动脉灌注梯度(主动脉与心房压力之差)进行了高保真血流动力学记录。将传统手动CPR期间的结果与高脉冲CPR(速率为120次/分钟,压缩与放松比例较短)期间以及有或无同步通气和腹部捆绑的气动背心CPR期间的结果进行了比较。传统CPR期间的主动脉峰值压力平均为61±29 mmHg,但患者之间差异很大(范围为39 - 126 mmHg)。尽管改善幅度不大,但高脉冲方法是唯一经测试能在心脏骤停期间显著提高主动脉峰值压力和冠状动脉灌注梯度的技术。在传统CPR期间,高脉冲CPR时主动脉压力从61±29 mmHg升至80±39 mmHg,梯度分别从9±11 mmHg升至14±15 mmHg;p<0.01。气动背心方法显著提高了主动脉峰值压力,但未提高冠状动脉灌注梯度。同步通气和胸部按压产生了较高的呼气末压力并降低了冠状动脉灌注梯度。腹部捆绑没有显著的血流动力学效应。对人体实验性复苏方法的这项评估表明,高脉冲胸外按压方法能使主动脉压力高于传统CPR方法所达到的水平;然而,压力的改善幅度不大,可能在临床上并不重要。CPR期间同步通气以及腹部捆绑没有益处;事实上,同步通气似乎对心脏灌注有不利影响,因此,在临床复苏期间不应使用。

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