中国医药导刊
中國醫藥導刊
중국의약도간
Chinese Journal of Medical Guide
2015年
10期
992-993,996
,共3页
Thumper心肺复苏机%徒手心肺复苏%心脏呼吸骤停%临床治疗效果
Thumper心肺複囌機%徒手心肺複囌%心髒呼吸驟停%臨床治療效果
Thumper심폐복소궤%도수심폐복소%심장호흡취정%림상치료효과
Thumper CPR machine%Unarmed CPR%Cardiac and respiratory arrest%Clinical treatment effects
目的：Thumper心肺复苏机与徒手心肺复苏抢救心脏呼吸骤停患者的临床治疗效果。方法：统计分析2011年8月～2013年8月我院收治的87例心脏呼吸骤停患者的临床资料。结果：心肺复苏后15min，观察组患者的PaO2明显比对照组高（P＜0.05）， PaCO2明显比对照组低（P＜0.05）；心肺复苏30min，观察组患者的PaO2、SaO2均明显比对照组高（P＜0.05），PaCO2明显比对照组低（P＜0.05）；观察组患者的复苏有效率83.7%（41/49）明显比对照组63.2%（24/38）高（P＜0.05），副反应发生率12.2%（6/49）明显比对照组39.5%（15/38）低（P＜0.05）。结论：Thumper心肺复苏机抢救心脏呼吸骤停患者的临床治疗效果较徒手心肺复苏好。
目的：Thumper心肺複囌機與徒手心肺複囌搶救心髒呼吸驟停患者的臨床治療效果。方法：統計分析2011年8月～2013年8月我院收治的87例心髒呼吸驟停患者的臨床資料。結果：心肺複囌後15min，觀察組患者的PaO2明顯比對照組高（P＜0.05）， PaCO2明顯比對照組低（P＜0.05）；心肺複囌30min，觀察組患者的PaO2、SaO2均明顯比對照組高（P＜0.05），PaCO2明顯比對照組低（P＜0.05）；觀察組患者的複囌有效率83.7%（41/49）明顯比對照組63.2%（24/38）高（P＜0.05），副反應髮生率12.2%（6/49）明顯比對照組39.5%（15/38）低（P＜0.05）。結論：Thumper心肺複囌機搶救心髒呼吸驟停患者的臨床治療效果較徒手心肺複囌好。
목적：Thumper심폐복소궤여도수심폐복소창구심장호흡취정환자적림상치료효과。방법：통계분석2011년8월～2013년8월아원수치적87례심장호흡취정환자적림상자료。결과：심폐복소후15min，관찰조환자적PaO2명현비대조조고（P＜0.05）， PaCO2명현비대조조저（P＜0.05）；심폐복소30min，관찰조환자적PaO2、SaO2균명현비대조조고（P＜0.05），PaCO2명현비대조조저（P＜0.05）；관찰조환자적복소유효솔83.7%（41/49）명현비대조조63.2%（24/38）고（P＜0.05），부반응발생솔12.2%（6/49）명현비대조조39.5%（15/38）저（P＜0.05）。결론：Thumper심폐복소궤창구심장호흡취정환자적림상치료효과교도수심폐복소호。
Objective: To analyze the clinical treatment effects of Thumper CPR machine and unarmed CPR in the arrest of cardiac and respiratory patients.Methods:The clinical data of 87 cases of cardiac and respiratory patients arrested in our hospital from August 2011 to August 2013 were statistically analyzed.Results:The PaO2 15min after cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the observation group was significantly higher than the control group(P<0.05), the PaCO2 was significantly lower than the control group(P<0.05); The PaO2, SaO2 30min after cardiopulmonary resuscitation were significantly higher than the control group(P<0.05), the PaCO2 was significantly lower than the control group(P<0.05); The resuscitation efficiency 83.7% (41/49) was significantly higher than the control group 63.2% (24/38) (P<0.05), the Vice-reaction rate 12.2% (6/49) was significantly lower than the control group 39.5% (15/38) (P<0.05).Conclusion:The clinical effect of Thumper CPR machine in the rescue of patients with cardiac and respiratory is better than unarmed CPR.
