摘要
目的:探讨三种气管插管方法在急救中应用。方法:90例急救患者随机分为单纯气管插管组(A组,n=30)、气管插管型喉罩(ILMA)组(B组,n=30)和喉罩组(C组,n=30),比较心率(heart rate,HR)、平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)和脉搏血氧饱和(saturation pulse oxygen,SPO_2)和术后并发症。结果:A组HR为(93.4±8.1)次/min,显著高于B组(74.5±3.5)次/min,(q=13.507,P<0.05)和C组(78.5±5.5)次/min(q=14.407,P<0.05);A组MAP为(97.1±8.7)mmHg,显著高于B组(87.6±7.3)mmHg(q=3.979,P<0.05)和C组(90.6±8.8)mmHg(q=3.390,P<0.05);A组SpO_2(94±3.5)%,显著低于C组(99±1)%(q=4.140,P<0.05);A组平均插管时间(175±17)s大于B组(150±15)s和C组(102±12)s(q=4.250,q=4.310,P<0.05)。结论:气管插管型喉罩对急救患者是一种简便、安全、有效的气管插管方法。
Objective： To investigate the application of emergency by different endotracheal intubation. Methods： 90 cases with emergency were randomly divided into simple endotracheal intubation group（A group=30）, endotracheal intubation laryngeal mask（1LMA） group（B group, n=30）and laryngeal mask airway group（C group n=30）,Comparison the heart rate（HR）,mean arterial pressure（MAP）,oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry（SPO2）,time for tracheostomy, and postoperative complications. Results： The HR （93.4~8.1）times/min in A group were significantly higher than B group（74.5±3.5） times/min （q=13.507,P〈0.05） and C group （78,5±5.5） times/min（q=t4,407,P〈0.05）; The MAP（97.1±8.7）mmHg in A group were significantly higher than B group（87.6±73）mmHg（q=3.979, P〈0.05）and C group（90.6±8.8） mmHg （q=3.390, P〈0.05）;The SPO2（94.5±3.5）% in A group were significantly lower than the C group（99±1）%（q=4.140,P〈 0.05）;The average intubation time（175±17）s in A group were significantly higher than the B group（150±15）s and the C group（102±12）s（q=4.250,q=4.310,P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The method of ILMA was is a simple, safe and effective in patients with emergency. [KEYWORDS] Emergency; Endotracheal intubation;Applicafion
出处
《中国医药导刊》
2009年第8期1295-1296,1299,1301,共4页
Chinese Journal of Medicinal Guide
关键词
急救
气管插管
应用
Emergency
Endotracheal intubation
Application
