首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Emergency Medicine >QUALITY COMPARISON OF THE MANUAL CHEST COMPRESSION AND THE MECHANICAL CHEST COMPRESSION DURING DIFFICULT TRANSPORT CONDITIONS
【24h】

QUALITY COMPARISON OF THE MANUAL CHEST COMPRESSION AND THE MECHANICAL CHEST COMPRESSION DURING DIFFICULT TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

机译:手动胸部压缩的质量比较和困难运输条件下的机械胸部压缩

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Although there are several studies comparing the quality of manual and mechanical chest compressions, we decided to conduct this study because results of previous studies were not sufficient for us to arrive at a definite conclusion. Objective: In this study, our goal was to evaluate the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed manually and by mechanical chest compression device (MCCD) when removing out-of- hospital cardiac arrest patients from their homes via stairs. Methods: A total of 20 paramedics participated in the study. The patient simulator manikin was moved down the stairs while each of 20 paramedics performed chest compressions, then it was moved down the stairs again 20 times while the MCCD performed chest compressions. Compression depth, compression rate, and hands-on times were recorded and the data were compared. Results: The median chest compression rate was 142.0 compressions/min (interquartile [25th to 75th percentile] range [IQR] 134.9-148.7 compressions/min) for the paramedics and 102.3 compressions/min for the MCCD (IQR 102.2-102.5 compressions/min) (p < 0.01). The median chest compression depth was 25.2 mm (IQR 23.2-30.9 mm) for the paramedics and 52.0 mm for the MCCD (IQR 51.4-52.6 mm) (p < 0.001). The rate of hands-on time for chest compressions performed by the paramedic participants was 92.0% (IQR 86.5-100%). Hands-on rate of the MCCD was 100% (p = 0.09). Conclusions: In our study, while carrying the patient simulator manikin to the lower floor, it was found that the MCCD achieved high-quality CPR targets recommended by resuscitation guidelines in terms of compression rate, depth, and hands-on-time. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译:背景:虽然有几项研究比较了手动和机械胸部按压的质量,但我们决定进行这项研究,因为前面的研究的结果不足以让我们达到明确的结论。目的:在这项研究中,我们的目标是评估手动复苏(CPR)的质量,并通过机械胸部压缩装置(MCCD)通过楼梯从他们的房屋移除医院的心脏骤停患者时进行手动和机械胸部压缩装置(MCCD)。方法:共有20名护理人员参加了该研究。患者模拟器Manikin被沿楼梯移动,而20个护理人员的每一个进行胸部按压,那么它在MCCD执行胸部按压时再次移动到楼梯20次。记录压缩深度,压缩速率和动手时间,并比较数据。结果:中位数胸部压缩率为142.0压缩/分钟(间形[25至第75百分位]范围[IQR] 134.9-148.7压缩/分钟)为医疗服务器和102.3用于MCCD的按压/分钟(IQR 102.2-102.5压缩/分钟)(P <0.01)。中位胸部压缩深度为医护人员(IQR 23.2-30.9 mm)为25.2毫米(IQR 23.2-30.9 mm),MCCD为52.0 mm(IQR 51.4-52.6 mm)(P <0.001)。由护理人员参与者执行的胸部按压的动手时间率为92.0%(IQR 86.5-100%)。 MCCD的动手率为100%(P = 0.09)。结论:在我们的研究中,在将患者模拟器Manikin携带到较低楼层的同时,发现MCCD在压缩率,深度和动静时,通过复苏指南达到了高质量的CPR目标。 (c)2020 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

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