The comparison of effectiveness and safety of mechanical continue chest compression ventilation (CCV) and interrupt pressure ventilation (30∶2) on cardiopulmonary resuscitation / 中国医师杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To investigate the effects and safety of mechanical continue heart chest compression ventilation (CCV) and interrupt pressure ventilation (30∶2) on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).Methods According to the mechanical pressure ventilation different way,90 patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in our hospital emergency center were admitted into control group (30∶2 group) with 48 cases and observation group (CCV group) with 42 cases,with a before and after case-control study to compare the recovery effects [rate of spontaneous circulation restoration (ROCS),successful recovery rate,the ROCS time,withdraw machine time,and Glasgow coma scale(GCS) in successful recovery patients] and recovery of adveme events (fracture,skin lesions,hemopneumothorax,and visceral injury).Results With comparison between two groups,CCV group had shorter ROCS recovery time and withdraw machine time [(9.31±4.32) min vs (12.67±4.86) min,(32.07 t4.84) min vs (36.33 ± 3.37)min,P ＜0.05],higher rate of ROCS and successful recovery rate (42.9％ vs 22.9％,21.4％ vs 6.3％,P ＜ 0.05) than 30∶2 group;while both were no difference in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) in successful recovery patients (P ＞ 0.05).The incidence of adverse events were not different in both (11.9％ vs 8.3％,P ＞0.05).Conclusions Mechanical continue chest compression ventilation (CCV) compared to interrupt pressure ventilation (30∶ 2) can effectively shorten the ROCS recovery time and withdraw machine time,improve the ROSC recovery rate and success rate of recovery,but failed to improve nerve functions.Two groups have a lower incidence of adverse events,which is safe to use.