Shultz J J, Mianulli M J, Gisch T M, Coffeen P R, Haidet G C, Lurie K G
University of Minnesota Medical School, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
Resuscitation. 1995 Feb;29(1):23-31. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(94)00812-t.
Active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) utilizes a hand-held suction device with a pressure gauge that enables the operator to compress as well as actively decompress the chest. This new CPR method improves hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters when compared with standard CPR. ACD-CPR is easy to perform but may be more labor intensive. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the work required to perform ACD and standard CPR.
Cardiopulmonary testing was performed on six basic cardiac life support- and ACD-trained St. Paul, MN fire-fighter personnel during performance of 10 min each of ACD and standard CPR on a mannequin equipped with a compression gauge. The order of CPR techniques was determined randomly with > 1 h between each study. Each CPR method was performed at 80 compressions/min (timed with a metronome), to a depth of 1.5-2 inches, and with a 50% duty cycle.
Baseline cardiopulmonary measurements were similar at rest prior to performance of both CPR methods. During standard and ACD-CPR, respectively, rate-pressure product was 18.2 +/- 3.0 vs. 23.8 +/- 1.7 (x 1000, P < 0.01); mean oxygen consumption 15.98 +/- 2.29 vs. 20.07 +/- 2.10 ml/kg/min or 4.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 5.7 +/- 0.6 METS (P < 0.01); carbon dioxide production 1115.7 +/- 110 vs. 1459.1 +/- 176 ml/min; respiratory exchange ratio 0.88 +/- 0.04 vs. 0.92 +/- 0.04 (P = NS); and minute ventilation 35.5 +/- 5.1 vs. 45.6 +/- 9.2 l/min (P < 0.01).
Approximately 25% more work is required to perform ACD-CPR compared with standard CPR. Both methods require subanaerobic energy expenditure and can therefore be sustained for a sufficient length of time by most individuals to optimize resuscitation efforts. Due to the slightly higher work requirement, ACD-CPR may be more difficult to perform compared with standard CPR for long periods of time, particularly by individuals unaccustomed to the workload requirement of CPR, in general.
主动按压-减压(ACD)心肺复苏(CPR)使用一种带有压力计的手持式抽吸装置,使操作者能够对胸部进行按压以及主动减压。与标准心肺复苏相比,这种新的心肺复苏方法可改善血流动力学和通气参数。ACD-CPR操作简便,但可能劳动强度更大。本研究的目的是量化并比较进行ACD和标准CPR所需的工作量。
对明尼苏达州圣保罗市6名接受过基础心脏生命支持和ACD培训的消防员进行心肺测试,他们在配备有按压计的人体模型上分别进行10分钟的ACD和标准CPR操作。心肺复苏技术的顺序随机确定,每次研究之间间隔超过1小时。每种心肺复苏方法均以每分钟80次按压(用节拍器计时)进行,按压深度为1.5 - 2英寸,占空比为50%。
在进行两种心肺复苏方法之前,静息时的基线心肺测量值相似。在标准CPR和ACD-CPR期间,心率-血压乘积分别为18.2±3.0与23.8±1.7(×1000,P<0.01);平均耗氧量为15.98±2.29与20.07±2.10 ml/kg/分钟,或4.6±0.7与5.7±0.6梅脱(P<0.01);二氧化碳产生量为1115.7±110与1459.1±176 ml/分钟;呼吸交换率为0.88±0.04与0.92±0.04(P=无显著差异);分钟通气量为35.5±5.1与45.6±9.2 l/分钟(P<0.01)。
与标准CPR相比,进行ACD-CPR所需的工作量大约多25%。两种方法都需要亚无氧能量消耗,因此大多数人能够维持足够长的时间以优化复苏努力。由于工作量要求略高,与标准CPR相比,长时间进行ACD-CPR可能更困难,尤其是对于一般不习惯心肺复苏工作量要求的人来说。