心肺复苏术中的气道管理和通气。

C W Otto
{"title":"心肺复苏术中的气道管理和通气。","authors":"C W Otto","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this porcine model of fibrillatory cardiac arrest (Table 1), ventilation during basic life support does not improve 24-hour survival or neurological outcome compared to chest compressions alone when advanced life support is provided within 15 minutes of arrest. Bystander CPR can save lives, but is usually not offered, at least in part, because of reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation. If chest compressions alone are similarly effective and more acceptable compared to chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth ventilation, the simpler technique may result in more lives saved.</p>","PeriodicalId":75373,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum","volume":"111 ","pages":"52-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Airway management and ventilation during CPR.\",\"authors\":\"C W Otto\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this porcine model of fibrillatory cardiac arrest (Table 1), ventilation during basic life support does not improve 24-hour survival or neurological outcome compared to chest compressions alone when advanced life support is provided within 15 minutes of arrest. Bystander CPR can save lives, but is usually not offered, at least in part, because of reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation. If chest compressions alone are similarly effective and more acceptable compared to chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth ventilation, the simpler technique may result in more lives saved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75373,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum\",\"volume\":\"111 \",\"pages\":\"52-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在猪的纤原性心脏骤停模型中(表1),与单纯胸外按压相比,在心脏骤停后15分钟内给予高级生命支持时,在基本生命支持期间进行通气并不能提高24小时生存率或神经学预后。旁观者CPR可以挽救生命,但通常不提供,至少在一定程度上,因为不愿意进行口对口通气。如果单独胸外按压与胸外按压和口对口通气相比同样有效且更容易接受,那么更简单的技术可能会挽救更多的生命。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Airway management and ventilation during CPR.

In this porcine model of fibrillatory cardiac arrest (Table 1), ventilation during basic life support does not improve 24-hour survival or neurological outcome compared to chest compressions alone when advanced life support is provided within 15 minutes of arrest. Bystander CPR can save lives, but is usually not offered, at least in part, because of reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation. If chest compressions alone are similarly effective and more acceptable compared to chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth ventilation, the simpler technique may result in more lives saved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信