BACKGROUND: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is improved by greater vital organ blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We tested the hypothesis that myocardial flow above the threshold needed for ROSC may be associated with greater vital organ injury and worse outcome. METHODS: Aortic and right atrial pressures were measured with micromanometers in 27 swine. After 10 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, chest compression was performed with an automatic, load-distributing band. Animals were randomly assigned to receive flows just sufficient for ROSC (low flow: target coronary perfusion pressure = 12 mm Hg) or well above the minimally effective level (high flow: coronary perfusion pressure = 30 mm Hg). Myocardial flow was measured with microspheres, defibrillation was performed after 3.5 minutes of CPR, and ejection fraction was measured with echocardiography. RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved by 9 of 9 animals in the high-flow group and 15 of 18 in the low-flow group. All animals in the high-flow group defibrillated initially into a perfusing rhythm, whereas 12 of 15 animals achieving ROSC in the low-flow group defibrillated initially into pulseless electrical activity (P < .05, Fisher exact test). Compared with animals in the low-flow group, animals in the high-flow group had shorter resuscitation times, higher mean aortic pressures at ROSC, and higher ejection fractions at 2 hours post-ROSC (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: High-flow CPR significantly improved arrest hemodynamics, rates of ROSC, and post-ROSC indicators of myocardial status, all indicating less injury with higher flows. No evidence of organ injury from vital organ blood flow substantially above the threshold for ROSC was found. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is improved by greater vital organ blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We tested the hypothesis that myocardial flow above the threshold needed for ROSC may be associated with greater vital organ injury and worse outcome. METHODS: Aortic and right atrial pressures were measured with micromanometers in 27 swine. After 10 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, chest compression was performed with an automatic, load-distributing band. Animals were randomly assigned to receive flows just sufficient for ROSC (low flow: target coronary perfusion pressure = 12 mm Hg) or well above the minimally effective level (high flow: coronary perfusion pressure = 30 mm Hg). Myocardial flow was measured with microspheres, defibrillation was performed after 3.5 minutes of CPR, and ejection fraction was measured with echocardiography. RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved by 9 of 9 animals in the high-flow group and 15 of 18 in the low-flow group. All animals in the high-flow group defibrillated initially into a perfusing rhythm, whereas 12 of 15 animals achieving ROSC in the low-flow group defibrillated initially into pulseless electrical activity (P < .05, Fisher exact test). Compared with animals in the low-flow group, animals in the high-flow group had shorter resuscitation times, higher mean aortic pressures at ROSC, and higher ejection fractions at 2 hours post-ROSC (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: High-flow CPR significantly improved arrest hemodynamics, rates of ROSC, and post-ROSC indicators of myocardial status, all indicating less injury with higher flows. No evidence of organ injury from vital organ blood flow substantially above the threshold for ROSC was found. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Benjamin French; Peter A Meaney; Alexis A Topjian; Christopher S Parshuram; Dana P Edelson; Stephen Schexnayder; Benjamin S Abella; Raina M Merchant; Melania Bembea; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jason C Schultz; Nicolas Segal; Emily Caldwell; James Kolbeck; Scott McKnite; Nick Lebedoff; Menekhem Zviman; Tom P Aufderheide; Demetris Yannopoulos Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maryam Y Naim; Robert M Sutton; Stuart H Friess; George Bratinov; Utpal Bhalala; Todd J Kilbaugh; Joshua W Lampe; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jason Schultz; Nicolas Segal; James Kolbeck; Emily Caldwell; Marit Thorsgard; Scott McKnite; Tom P Aufderheide; Keith G Lurie; Demetris Yannopoulos Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Stuart H Friess; Utpal Bhalala; Matthew R Maltese; Maryam Y Naim; George Bratinov; Dana Niles; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Stuart H Friess; Robert M Sutton; Utpal Bhalala; Matthew R Maltese; Maryam Y Naim; George Bratinov; Theodore R Weiland; Mia Garuccio; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.598
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; Benjamin French; Akira Nishisaki; Dana E Niles; Matthew R Maltese; Lori Boyle; Mette Stavland; Joar Eilevstjønn; Kristy B Arbogast; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Johanna C Moore; Bayert Salverda; Michael Lick; Carolina Rojas-Salvador; Nicolas Segal; Guillaume Debaty; Keith G Lurie Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Stuart H Friess; Robert M Sutton; Benjamin French; Utpal Bhalala; Matthew R Maltese; Maryam Y Naim; George Bratinov; Silvana Arciniegas Rodriguez; Theodore R Weiland; Mia Garuccio; Vinay M Nadkarni; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 5.262