Literature DB >> 29221300

Comparison of continuous compression with regular ventilations versus 30:2 compressions-ventilations strategy during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a porcine model of cardiac arrest.

Zhengfei Yang1,2,3, Qingyu Liu1,2, Guanghui Zheng2, Zhifeng Liu1, Longyuan Jiang2, Qing Lin1, Rui Chen2, Wanchun Tang2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A compression-ventilation (C:V) ratio of 30:2 is recommended for adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by the current American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. However, continuous chest compression (CCC) is an alternative strategy for CPR that minimizes interruption especially when an advanced airway exists. In this study, we investigated the effects of 30:2 mechanical CPR when compared with CCC in combination with regular ventilation in a porcine model.
METHODS: Sixteen male domestic pigs weighing 39±2 kg were utilized. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and untreated for 7 min. The animals were then randomly assigned to receive CCC combined with regular ventilation (CCC group) or 30:2 CPR (VC group). Mechanical chest compression was implemented with a miniaturized mechanical chest compressor. At the same time of beginning of precordial compression, the animals were mechanically ventilated at a rate of 10 breaths-per-minute in the CCC group or with a 30:2 C:V ratio in the VC group. Defibrillation was delivered by a single 150 J shock after 5 min of CPR. If failed to resuscitation, CPR was resumed for 2 min before the next shock. The protocol was stopped if successful resuscitation or at a total of 15 min. The resuscitated animals were observed for 72 h.
RESULTS: Coronary perfusion pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide and carotid blood flow in the VC group were similar to those achieved in the CCC group during CPR. No significant differences were observed in arterial blood gas parameters between two groups at baseline, VF 6 min, CPR 4 min and 30, 120 and 360 min post-resuscitation. Although extravascular lung water index of both groups significantly increased after resuscitation, no distinct difference was found between CCC and VC groups. All animals were successfully resuscitated and survived for 72 h with favorable neurologic outcomes in both groups. However, obviously more numbers of rib fracture were observed in CCC animals in comparison with VC animals.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in hemodynamic efficacy and gas exchange during and after resuscitation, therefore identical 72 h survival with intact neurologic function was observed in both VC and CCC groups. However, the incidence of rib fracture increases during the mechanical CPR strategy of CCC combined with regular ventilations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); cardiac arrest (CA); hemodynamics; ventilation

Year:  2017        PMID: 29221300      PMCID: PMC5708479          DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.08.167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  25 in total

1.  Optimum compression to ventilation ratios in CPR under realistic, practical conditions: a physiological and mathematical analysis.

Authors:  Charles F Babbs; Karl B Kern
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders with chest compression only (SOS-KANTO): an observational study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-03-17       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Effectiveness of bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Taku Iwami; Takashi Kawamura; Atsushi Hiraide; Robert A Berg; Yasuyuki Hayashi; Tatsuya Nishiuchi; Kentaro Kajino; Naohiro Yonemoto; Hidekazu Yukioka; Hisashi Sugimoto; Hiroyuki Kakuchi; Kazuhiro Sase; Hiroyuki Yokoyama; Hiroshi Nonogi
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-12-10       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Assisted ventilation during 'bystander' CPR in a swine acute myocardial infarction model does not improve outcome.

Authors:  R A Berg; K B Kern; R W Hilwig; G A Ewy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-12-16       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Assisted ventilation does not improve outcome in a porcine model of single-rescuer bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  R A Berg; K B Kern; R W Hilwig; M D Berg; A B Sanders; C W Otto; G A Ewy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-03-18       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Improved neurological outcome with continuous chest compressions compared with 30:2 compressions-to-ventilations cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a realistic swine model of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

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

7.  Spontaneous gasping increases the ability to resuscitate during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  L Yang; M H Weil; M Noc; W Tang; T Turner; R J Gazmuri
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Spontaneous gasping during cardiopulmonary resuscitation without mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  M Noc; M H Weil; S Sun; W Tang; J Bisera
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 21.405

9.  Comparison of chest compression only and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Singapore.

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

10.  Clinical and hemodynamic comparison of 15:2 and 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratios for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Demetris Yannopoulos; Tom P Aufderheide; Andrea Gabrielli; David G Beiser; Scott H McKnite; Ronald G Pirrallo; Jane Wigginton; Lance Becker; Terry Vanden Hoek; Wanchun Tang; Vinay M Nadkarni; John P Klein; Ahamed H Idris; Keith G Lurie
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.