摘要：
目的 了解中国急诊医师心肺复苏(CPR)通气治疗现状.方法 于2015年4月17日至19日,采用问卷调查的方法,对参加2015年北京协和急诊医学国际高峰论坛的800名医师进行问卷调查,了解CPR过程中通气治疗现状.结果 共发放调查问卷800份,回收有效问卷638份(占79.75%);参与调查者分别来自北京市、河北省、山东省、广东省、辽宁省等29个省市地区;其中男性331名,女性307名;91.54%(584名)为急诊科医师,77.90%(497名)来自三级医院,17.55%(112名)来自二级医院.在CPR时,86.4%(551名)受调查医师常规给予气管插管;在给予气管插管后,25.8%(142名)医师采用简易呼吸器辅助呼吸,74.2%(409名)医师采用呼吸机辅助通气.在使用呼吸机进行通气的医师中,301名(73.6%)医师采用容量控制通气模式,334名(81.7%)医师将呼吸频率设置为低于15次/min,89.2%(365名)的医师将潮气量设置为400～500 mL.当选择流量触发时,79.7%(326名)的医师将灵敏度设置为1～6 L/min,16.4%(67名)的医师选择默认参数,不调整流量触发参数;当选择压力触发时,75.1%(307名)的医师将灵敏度设置为-1～-6 cmH2O(1 cmH2O＝0.098 kPa), 20.3%(83名)的医师选择默认参数,不调整压力触发参数.而在CPR使用呼吸机进行通气时,84.8%(347名)的医师常见到呼吸机报警,报警类型分别为高峰压〔39.6%(162/409)〕、低每分通气量〔24.9%(102/409)〕、高呼吸频率〔21.3%(87/409)〕,但仅有67.2%(275名)的医师会重新调整通气模式相关参数,仅有59.2%(242名)的医师会观察实际呼吸频率.结论 在CPR中进行人工通气时,大部分急诊科医师倾向于使用气管插管及机械通气;在呼吸机模式选择上,常采用容量控制通气模式;在呼吸机参数设置上,通气频率并未严格按指南要求,且大部分吸气触发设置过低,极易导致过度通气,同时急诊科医生常忽视实际通气频率;大部分呼吸机常出现报警,但仅有67.2%的急诊科医师会重新调整通气参数.%Objective To investigate the current practice of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in Chinese emergency physicians. Methods Self-designed questionnaires were used to survey mainly the present situation of CPR ventilation practice performed by 800 physicians who participated in the Peking Union International Summit for Emergency Medicine from April 17th to 19th, 2015. Results A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed and 638 (79.75%) valid questionnaires were taken back; the responders joining the survey came from 29 provinces and regions, including Beijing, Hebei, Shandong, Guangdong, Liaoning, etc. There were 331 males and 307 females; 91.54% (584 responders) were emergency physicians and 77.90% (497 responders) came from tertiary hospitals, 17.55% (112 responders) came from the secondary hospitals. Regarding ventilation during CPR, 86.4% (551 responders) declared the patients was routinely given endo-tracheal intubation; after intubation, 25.8% (142 responders) adopted bag-mask ventilation, and 74.2% (409 responders) applied mechanical ventilation. When a ventilator was used, 301 (73.6%) responders used the volume controlled ventilation mode, 334 (81.7%) responders set the respiratory rate (RR) lower than 15 bpm, while 89.2% (365 responders) used the tidal volume set at a range of 400-500 mL. When adopted the flow triggering sensitivity, 79.7% (326 responders) set the sensitivity at 1-6 L/min, while 16.4% (67 responders) selected the default parameter, not adjusting the flow triggering parameter; when adopted the pressure triggering sensitivity, 75.1% (307 responders) set the sensitivity between -1 to -6 cmH2O (1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa) and 20.3% (83 responders) selected the default value, not adjusting the pressure triggering parameter. When the mechanical ventilation (MV) was adopted, 84.8% (347 responders) declared often experiencing problems with MV, such as airway high peak pressure alarms [39.6% (162/409)], lower ventilation volume per minute alarms [24.9% (102/409)], higher respiratory frequency alarms [21.3% (87/409)], but only 67.2% (275 responders) would again adjust the ventilation mode related parameters and only 59.2% (242 responders) would observe the actual respiratory frequency. Conclusions With regards to artificial ventilation during CPR, the majority of emergency physicians tend to adopt endotracheal intubation and commonly use the volume controlled mode of mechanical ventilation; among the ventilator parameter setting, the RR is not strictly in accordance with the CPR guidelines, and most of the inspiration triggering sensitivity setting was too low, very easily to induce hyperventilation; simultaneously, the emergency physicians often neglect the practical RR; although there are many problems with ventilation such as frequent alarms, only 67.2% of the emergency physicians would again adjust the ventilation parameters.
