Wenzel V, Lindner K H, Prengel A W
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum der Universität Ulm.
Anaesthesist. 1997 Feb;46(2):133-41. doi: 10.1007/s001010050383.
In a recently published German multicenter study, 25% of the patients with witnessed cardiac arrest outside the hospital were resuscitated successfully and discharged from the hospital. Approximately 100,000 people suffer a fatal cardiac arrest in Germany annually, which is approximately tenfold the number of deaths from motor vehicle accidents. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by bystanders is an important part of the chain of survival to minimize the time interval without artificial circulation and ventilation in a cardiac arrest victim. This is especially important in areas with long response times of the emergency medical service (EMS). Early examples of ventilation have been described throughout history. References to mouth-to-mouth ventilation (MTMV) are found in the Bible, in a description of the resuscitation of a coal miner in 1744, and in an experiment in 1796 demonstrating that exhaled gas was safe for breathing. In 1954, Elam and colleagues described artificial respiration with the exhaled gas of a rescuer using a mouth-to-mask ventilation method. The modern CPR era started with the combination of MTMV and chest compressions 35 years ago. However, the value of MTMV is currently under discussion because of a widespread fear of transmission of infectious diseases. Healthcare professionals have stated in several studies that they may withhold MTMV when confronted with a cardiac arrest in a stranger. Although an infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis is more likely than one with HIV via MTMV, the fear of the public is understandable. An expert committee of the American Heart Association stated that MTMV may be omitted in the initial phase of cardiac arrest, and considered recommending chest compressions only if the EMS will arrive rapidly. In paralyzed volunteers, however, ventilation induced by chest compressions was not able to provide sufficient gas exchange, especially when the airway was not protected. Laboratory investigations studying ventilation during CPR showed controversial results; in one animal model of cardiac arrest with muscle paralysis, chest compressions were not sufficient for adequate gas exchange, but active compression-decompression CPR achieved reasonable ventilation. Animal models that prevented gasping during cardiac arrest required ventilation during CPR, whereas gasping animals seemed to be satisfactorily ventilated with chest compressions alone. The question whether spontaneous gasping after cardiac arrest in humans may be sufficient for oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination is debatable and remains unanswered at this time. When cardiac arrest is monitored, frequent coughing by the patient may maintain artificial ventilation and circulation for 30 s. The strategy to compress the thorax first and then maintain the airway and perform ventilation may only have an advantage for the first 30 s of CPR. Therefore, MTMV remains the therapy of choice to ventilate the victim of cardiac arrest. If a rescuer chooses to not perform MTMV, at least chest compressions should be administered. During ventilation with an unprotected airway, tidal volumes of 0.5 l instead 0.8-1.2 l may have an advantage. This strategy would decrease the inspiratory flow rate and, therefore, peak airway inflation pressure, which is associated with stomach inflation. Animal models indicate that lower esophageal sphincter pressure may decrease rapidly to 5 cm H2O during cardiac arrest, which may further increase the importance of a low peak airway pressure during ventilation with an unprotected airway. Gastric inflation may cause, besides regurgitation, aspiration, and pneumonia, an increased intragastric pressure, which may push up the diaphragm, decrease lung compliance, and induce a vicious circle of hypoventilation and stomach inflation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
在最近发表的一项德国多中心研究中,25% 的院外目击心脏骤停患者成功复苏并出院。德国每年约有10万人发生致命性心脏骤停,这一数字约为机动车事故死亡人数的10倍。旁观者实施的心肺复苏(CPR)是生存链的重要组成部分,可将心脏骤停受害者无人工循环和通气的时间间隔减至最短。在紧急医疗服务(EMS)响应时间较长的地区,这一点尤为重要。通气的早期例子在历史上已有记载。在《圣经》中、1744年对一名煤矿工人复苏的描述中以及1796年一项证明呼出气体可安全用于呼吸的实验中,都提到了口对口通气(MTMV)。1954年,伊拉姆及其同事描述了使用口对面罩通气法利用施救者呼出气体进行人工呼吸。现代心肺复苏时代始于35年前口对口通气与胸外按压的结合。然而,由于普遍担心传染病传播,目前口对口通气的价值正受到讨论。医疗保健专业人员在多项研究中表示,面对陌生人心脏骤停时,他们可能会不进行口对口通气。虽然通过口对口通气感染结核分枝杆菌比感染艾滋病毒的可能性更大,但公众的担忧是可以理解的。美国心脏协会的一个专家委员会表示,在心脏骤停的初始阶段可以不进行口对口通气,并考虑仅在紧急医疗服务能迅速到达时才建议进行胸外按压。然而,在瘫痪的志愿者中,胸外按压诱导的通气无法提供足够的气体交换,尤其是在气道未得到保护时。研究心肺复苏期间通气的实验室研究结果存在争议;在一个肌肉麻痹的心脏骤停动物模型中,胸外按压不足以实现充分的气体交换,但主动按压 - 减压心肺复苏可实现合理的通气。在心脏骤停期间防止喘息的动物模型在心肺复苏期间需要通气,而喘息的动物似乎仅通过胸外按压就能得到满意的通气。心脏骤停后人类自发喘息是否足以实现氧合和二氧化碳清除这一问题存在争议,目前尚无答案。当监测到心脏骤停时,患者频繁咳嗽可能维持人工通气和循环30秒。先按压胸部然后保持气道并进行通气的策略可能仅在心肺复苏的前30秒具有优势。因此,口对口通气仍然是心脏骤停受害者通气的首选治疗方法。如果施救者选择不进行口对口通气,至少应进行胸外按压。在未保护气道的通气过程中,潮气量为0.5升而非0.8 - 1.2升可能具有优势。这一策略将降低吸气流速,从而降低气道峰值充气压力,而气道峰值充气压力与胃扩张有关。动物模型表明,心脏骤停期间食管下括约肌压力可能迅速降至5厘米水柱,这可能进一步增加未保护气道通气时低气道峰值压力的重要性。胃扩张除了会导致反流、误吸和肺炎外,还可能导致胃内压力升高,这可能会抬高膈肌、降低肺顺应性,并引发通气不足和胃扩张的恶性循环。(摘要截选)