【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,SPO₂）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SpO₂（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。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective: To investigate the application of emergency by different endotracheal intubation. Methods: 90 cases with emergency were randomly divided into simple endotrachenl intubation group（A group=30）, endotracheal intubation laryngeal mask（ILMA） gronp（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=14.407,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.更多还原