两种心肺复苏操作技术疗效对比分析

两种心肺复苏操作技术疗效对比分析

收稿日期:1900-01-01 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2012-02-25

The Curative Effect Contrast Analysis of Two Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Operation Technique

Received:1900-01-01 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2012-02-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的:探讨两种心肺复苏(CPR)操作技术的有效性。方法:对16例次心脏骤停患者采取2010年美国心脏病协会CPR和心血管病急症救治指南(新指南)操作技术进行抢救为研究组,回顾性分析心脏骤停实施2005年美国CPR救治指南(旧指南)操作技术抢救21例次患者为对照组,进行对比分析研究。结果:研究组16例次自主循环恢复时间3～15min,平均(6.2±3.3)min。对照组21例自主循环恢复时间4～16min,平均(10.5±6.7)min。研究组抢救16例次成功7例次,成功率43.75%,对照组抢救21例次,成功6例次,成功率28.57%。差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论:心脏骤停后迅速有效的心脏按压是提高CPR成功的关键,新指南CPR程序C-A-B-D较A-B-C-D更加有效。

Abstract: Objective:To explore the validity of two cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) technique method.Methods:Study group:16 cases of cardiac arrest patients were rescured according the 2010 American Heart Association CPR and cardiovascular disease treatment guidelines(the new guide) technique.control group:a retrospective analysis of 21 cases of cardiac arrest patients were rescured according the 2005 United States implementation of CPR treatment guidelines(old Guide) technique.Results:The study group:the spontaneous circulation recovery time is 3 ～ 15min,average(6.2±3.3) min.The control group:the spontaneous circulation recovery time is 4 ～ 16min,average(10.5±6.7) min.The study group:7 cases were successful rescued of the16 cases,the success rate is 43.75%,control group:6 cases were successful rescued of the 21,the success rate is 28.57%.There was a significant difference(P<0.05).Conclusion:The rapid effective cardiac compression is t the key to raise the success of CPR after cardiac arrest.The new CPR C-A-B-D guide is more effective than that of A-B-C-D program.

. 两种心肺复苏操作技术疗效对比分析[J]. .

快速检索引用检索图表检索高级检索