OBJECTIVE: To compare the ventilation achieved with chest compressions (CC) or ventilation plus compressions (VC) in a pediatric animal model of cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Randomized experimental study. SETTING:Experimental department of a University Hospital. METHODS:Twelve infant pigs with asphyxial cardiac arrest. Sequential 3-min periods of VC and CC were performed for a total duration of 9 min. Tidal volume (TV), end-tidal CO(2) (EtCO(2)), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), and peripheral, cerebral, and renal saturations were recorded and arterial and venous blood gases were analyzed. RESULTS: VC achieved a TV similar to the preset parameters on the ventilator, whilst the TV in CC was very low (P < 0.001). EtCO(2) with VC was significantly higher than with CC (14.0 vs. 3.9 mmHg, P < 0.05). Arterial pH was higher with VC than with CC (6.99 vs. 6.90 mmHg, P < 0.05). Arterial PCO(2) was lower with VC than with CC (62.1 vs. 97.0 mmHg, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the MAP; CVP; mPAP; peripheral, renal, and cerebral saturations; or lactate concentrations between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: VC achieves better ventilation than CC during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and has no negative effect on the hemodynamic situation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ventilation achieved with chest compressions (CC) or ventilation plus compressions (VC) in a pediatric animal model of cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Randomized experimental study. SETTING: Experimental department of a University Hospital. METHODS: Twelve infantpigs with asphyxial cardiac arrest. Sequential 3-min periods of VC and CC were performed for a total duration of 9 min. Tidal volume (TV), end-tidal CO(2) (EtCO(2)), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), and peripheral, cerebral, and renal saturations were recorded and arterial and venous blood gases were analyzed. RESULTS: VC achieved a TV similar to the preset parameters on the ventilator, whilst the TV in CC was very low (P < 0.001). EtCO(2) with VC was significantly higher than with CC (14.0 vs. 3.9 mmHg, P < 0.05). Arterial pH was higher with VC than with CC (6.99 vs. 6.90 mmHg, P < 0.05). Arterial PCO(2) was lower with VC than with CC (62.1 vs. 97.0 mmHg, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the MAP; CVP; mPAP; peripheral, renal, and cerebral saturations; or lactate concentrations between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: VC achieves better ventilation than CC during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and has no negative effect on the hemodynamic situation.
Authors: Gordon A Ewy; Mathias Zuercher; Ronald W Hilwig; Arthur B Sanders; Robert A Berg; Charles W Otto; Melinda M Hayes; Karl B Kern Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: N C Chandra; K G Gruben; J E Tsitlik; R Brower; A D Guerci; H H Halperin; M L Weisfeldt; S Permutt Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Faith Suan Peng Ng; P Anushia; Lai Peng Tham; Benjamin Sieu-Hon Leong; Victor Yeok Kein Ong; Ling Tiah; Swee Han Lim; V Anantharaman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marta Botran; Jesus Lopez-Herce; Javier Urbano; Maria J Solana; Ana Garcia; Angel Carrillo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marc D Berg; Stephen M Schexnayder; Leon Chameides; Mark Terry; Aaron Donoghue; Robert W Hickey; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marc D Berg; Stephen M Schexnayder; Leon Chameides; Mark Terry; Aaron Donoghue; Robert W Hickey; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rafael González; Lázaro Pascual; Alexandra Sava; Sara Tolón; Javier Urbano; Jesus López-Herce Journal: World J Pediatr Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 2.764
Authors: Alexis A Topjian; Robert A Berg; Joost J L M Bierens; Christine M Branche; Robert S Clark; Hans Friberg; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Michael Holzer; Laurence M Katz; Johannes T A Knape; Patrick M Kochanek; Vinay Nadkarni; Johannes G van der Hoeven; David S Warner Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Clemens Kill; Monika Galbas; Christian Neuhaus; Oliver Hahn; Pascal Wallot; Karl Kesper; Hinnerk Wulf; Wolfgang Dersch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240