论文部分内容阅读
目的 评价主动按压减压结合高频通气 (ACD- H)用于心肺复苏的可行性。方法 ACD- H:按压减压与通气同时进行 ,按压与呼气同步 ,减压与吸气同步 ;而主动按压减压结合传统通气技术 (ACD- C) :按压减压连续 5次停 2秒进行一次通气。 9只犬吸入 10 5℃蒸气 4秒致伤后用以上方法复苏。结果 心搏骤停前观察 :ACD- H吸气流速峰值 7.32 L / m in,呼气流速峰值 9.5 0 L / min;潮气量 79.5 0 ml,每分通气量 7.9L / m in,Pa O2 2 2 .2 5 k Pa,Pa CO2 4.93k Pa,明显优于主动按压减压结合持续供氧 (ACD) ,也明显优于单纯的 HFJV及主动按压 (AC)。电致颤心搏骤停后 ,按压与提拉条件不变 ,观测循环指标 :动脉收缩压最低值 ACD- C为 0 ,ACD- H为 18.6 8k Pa,平均值 ACD- C为19.0 7k Pa,ACD- H为 2 2 .81k Pa,两者有非常显著差异 ;心排血量最低值 ACD- C为 0 ,ACD- H为 (0 .81± 0 .45 ) L / min,平均值 ACD- C为 (0 .6 5± 0 .14) L / m in,ACD- H为 (0 .92± 0 .33) L / m in,两者差异非常明显。结论 ACD- H用于心肺复苏 ,其效果尤于传统方法。
Objective To evaluate the feasibility of active compression decompression combined with high frequency ventilation (ACD-H) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Method ACD-H: Pressing decompression and ventilation simultaneously, press and exhale synchronized, decompression and inspiration synchronized; and active compression decompression combined with traditional ventilation technology (ACD-C): press and decompression continuous 5 seconds to stop 2 seconds Ventilate once. 9 dogs inhaled 10 5 ℃ steam 4 seconds after the injury recovery with the above method. Results Before cardiac arrest, the peak flow velocity of ACD-H inspiratory was 7.32 L / m in, the peak of expiratory flow rate was 9.5 0 L / min, the tidal volume was 79.5 0 ml, the ventilation rate was 7.9 L / min, Pa O2 2 2.25 k Pa, Pa CO2 4.93 kPa, which is significantly better than active compression decompression combined with continuous oxygen supply (ACD), but also significantly better than pure HFJV and active compression (AC). After electrocardiogram and cardiac arrest, the conditions of pressing and pulling were the same, and the observational circulation indexes were as follows: the lowest arterial systolic blood pressure was ACD-C, ACD-H was 18.68k Pa, the mean ACD-C was 19.0 7k Pa, ACD-H was 22.81kPa, the difference between them was very significant. The lowest value of cardiac output ACD-C was 0, ACD-H was (0.81 ± 0.45) L / min, mean ACD- C was (0.056 ± 0.14) L / m in, ACD-H was (0.92 ± 0.33) L / m in, the difference between the two was very obvious. Conclusion ACD-H for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the effect is more traditional methods.