首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine >Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial
【24h】

Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial

机译:在上层落下的CPR下拯救:评估三种不同的疏散路线和机械和手动胸部压缩:Manikin试验

获取原文
           

摘要

If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different evacuation routes and manual and mechanical chest compressions. A CPR-training manikin recording CPR-quality was placed on the fifth floor and was evacuated to an ambulance via lift, turntable ladder, or staircase. Chest compressions were performed manually or with a mechanical CPR-device. Efficiency endpoints were compression depth and frequency, sufficiency of chest release, compared with European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines, and duration of the evacuation. Adverse outcomes were disconnection/dislocation of devices and hazards/accidents to the personnel. For all evacuation routes, compression depth and frequency were significantly more compliant with ERC-guidelines under mechanical CPR. Manual CPR was associated with considerable deviations from correct compression depth and frequency. Chest release only slightly differed between groups. Evacuation via lift under mechanical CPR was fastest and evacuation via turntable ladder under manual CPR was slowest. No device disconnections or accidents occurred, but hazard to personnel was perceived during evacuation via ladder under manual CPR. In this study, a mechanical CPR-device proved to deliver better CPR-quality during evacuation from an upper floor. If a lift accessible with a stretcher is available, this route should be preferred, regardless of manual or mechanical CPR. Turntable ladders can only be meaningfully used with mechanical CPR, otherwise CPR-quality is poor and hazard to the personnel is increased. Not all evacuation routes may be useable in a specific real-life scenario. German Clinical Trials Registry, www.drks.de, registration number DRKS00012885, registration date 17.08.2017.
机译:如果指出,如果从持续的持续的上层复苏(CPR)下的运输,则迄今为止,理想的CPR方法和疏散路径是未知的。我们旨在详细说明一种策略,旨在从上层落地的持续CPR下的患者,比较三条不同的疏散路线和手动和机械胸部按压。 CPR训练MANIKIN记录CPR质量被放置在五楼,并通过电梯,转盘梯或楼梯疏散到救护车。手动或用机械CPR装置进行胸部压缩。效率终点是压缩深度和频率,胸部发布的充分性,与欧洲复苏委员会(ERC)指导和疏散的持续时间相比。不良结果是将设备和危害/事故的断开/脱位对人员的障碍。对于所有疏散路线,压缩深度和频率明显更符合机械CPR下的ERC-指南。手动CPR与离正确压缩深度和频率相当大的偏差相关。胸部释放在组之间仅略有不同。通过机械CPR下升力的疏散最快,通过在手动CPR下通过转盘梯疏散是最慢的。没有设备断开或事故发生,但在手动CPR下通过梯子撤离期间对人员的危害被察觉。在这项研究中,在从上层的疏散过程中证明了机械CPR-DEVINET以提供更好的CPR质量。如果有担架的升降机可用,则不管手动或机械CPR如何,应优选该路线。转盘梯子只能有意义地与机械CPR一起使用,否则CPR质量差,对人员的危害增加。并非所有疏散路线都可以在特定的现实生活场景中使用。德国临床试验登记处,www.drks.de,注册号码drks00012885,注册日期17.08.2017。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号