BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interventions or functionality of mechanical CPR devices have been performed using porcine models. The purpose of this study was to identify differences between mechanical characteristics of the human and porcine chest during CPR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CPR data of 90 cardiac arrest patients was compared to data of 14 porcine from two animal studies. Chest stiffness k and viscosity mu were calculated from acceleration and pressure data recorded using a Laerdal Heartstart 4000SP defibrillator during CPR. K and mu were calculated at chest compression depths of 15, 30 and 50mm for three different time periods. RESULTS: At a depth of 15mm porcine chest stiffness was comparable to human chest stiffness at the beginning of resuscitation (4.8 vs. 4.5N/mm) and clearly lower after 200 chest compressions (2.9 vs. 4.5N/mm) (p<0.05). At 30 and 50mm porcine chest stiffness was higher at the beginning and comparable to human chest stiffness after 200 chest compressions. After 200 chest compressions porcine chest viscosity was similar to human chest viscosity at 15mm (108 vs. 110Ns/m), higher for 30mm (240 vs. 188Ns/m) and clearly higher for 50mm chest compression depth (672 vs. 339Ns/m) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, human and porcine chest behave relatively similarly during CPR with respect to chest stiffness, but differences in chest viscosity at medium and deep chest compression depth should at least be kept in mind when extrapolating porcine results to humans.
BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interventions or functionality of mechanical CPR devices have been performed using porcine models. The purpose of this study was to identify differences between mechanical characteristics of the human and porcine chest during CPR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CPR data of 90 cardiac arrestpatients was compared to data of 14 porcine from two animal studies. Chest stiffness k and viscosity mu were calculated from acceleration and pressure data recorded using a Laerdal Heartstart 4000SP defibrillator during CPR. K and mu were calculated at chest compression depths of 15, 30 and 50mm for three different time periods. RESULTS: At a depth of 15mm porcine chest stiffness was comparable to humanchest stiffness at the beginning of resuscitation (4.8 vs. 4.5N/mm) and clearly lower after 200 chest compressions (2.9 vs. 4.5N/mm) (p<0.05). At 30 and 50mm porcine chest stiffness was higher at the beginning and comparable to humanchest stiffness after 200 chest compressions. After 200 chest compressions porcine chest viscosity was similar to human chest viscosity at 15mm (108 vs. 110Ns/m), higher for 30mm (240 vs. 188Ns/m) and clearly higher for 50mm chest compression depth (672 vs. 339Ns/m) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, human and porcine chest behave relatively similarly during CPR with respect to chest stiffness, but differences in chest viscosity at medium and deep chest compression depth should at least be kept in mind when extrapolating porcine results to humans.
Authors: Manoel Ângelo Gomes Palácio; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Luciano Cesar Pontes de Azevedo; Ari Timerman Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Ryan W Morgan; Todd J Kilbaugh; Wesley Shoap; George Bratinov; Yuxi Lin; Ting-Chang Hsieh; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Caitlin E O'Brien; Polan T Santos; Michael Reyes; Shawn Adams; C Danielle Hopkins; Ewa Kulikowicz; Jennifer L Hamrick; Justin T Hamrick; Jennifer K Lee; Sapna R Kudchadkar; Elizabeth A Hunt; Raymond C Koehler; Donald H Shaffner Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-08-04 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Stuart H Friess; Maryam Y Naim; Joshua W Lampe; George Bratinov; Theodore R Weiland; Mia Garuccio; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Michael A Ferguson; Robert M Sutton; Michael Karlsson; Fredrik Sjövall; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg; Susan S Margulies; Todd J Kilbaugh Journal: J Bioenerg Biomembr Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Francis M Lapid; Caitlin E O'Brien; Sapna R Kudchadkar; Jennifer K Lee; Elizabeth A Hunt; Raymond C Koehler; Donald H Shaffner Journal: Paediatr Anaesth Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.556
Authors: Todd J Kilbaugh; Robert M Sutton; Michael Karlsson; Magnus J Hansson; Maryam Y Naim; Ryan W Morgan; George Bratinov; Joshua W Lampe; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Susan S Margulies; Robert A Berg Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: S Eichhorn; A Mendoza; A Prinzing; A Stroh; L Xinghai; M Polski; M Heller; H Lahm; E Wolf; R Lange; M Krane Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-12-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Kumaran Senthil; Ryan W Morgan; Marco M Hefti; Michael Karlsson; Andrew J Lautz; Constantine D Mavroudis; Tiffany Ko; Vinay M Nadkarni; Johannes Ehinger; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Francis X McGowan; Todd J Kilbaugh Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-04-29