OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of the duration of asphyxial arrest on the survival benefit previously seen with end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery. DESIGN: Preclinical randomized controlled study. SETTING: University animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Two-week-old swine. INTERVENTIONS: After either 17 or 23 minutes of asphyxial arrest, animals were randomized to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation or end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery. Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation was optimized by marker, monitor, and verbal feedback about compression rate, depth, and release. End-tidal CO2-guided delivery used adjustments to chest compression rate and depth to maximize end-tidal CO2 level without other feedback. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for both groups proceeded from 10 minutes of basic life support to 10 minutes of advanced life support or return of spontaneous circulation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After 17 minutes of asphyxial arrest, mean end-tidal CO2 during 10 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 18 ± 9 torr in the standard group and 33 ± 15 torr in the end-tidal CO2 group (p = 0.004). The rate of return of spontaneous circulation was three of 14 (21%) in the standard group rate and nine of 14 (64%) in the end-tidal CO2 group (p = 0.05). After a 23-minute asphyxial arrest, neither end-tidal CO2 values (20 vs 26) nor return of spontaneous circulation rate (3/14 vs 1/14) differed between the standard and end-tidal CO2-guided groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our previously observed survival benefit of end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery after 20 minutes of asphyxial arrest was confirmed after 17 minutes of asphyxial arrest. The poor survival after 23 minutes of asphyxia shows that the benefit of end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery is limited by severe asphyxia duration.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of the duration of asphyxial arrest on the survival benefit previously seen with end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery. DESIGN: Preclinical randomized controlled study. SETTING: University animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Two-week-old swine. INTERVENTIONS: After either 17 or 23 minutes of asphyxial arrest, animals were randomized to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation or end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery. Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation was optimized by marker, monitor, and verbal feedback about compression rate, depth, and release. End-tidal CO2-guided delivery used adjustments to chest compression rate and depth to maximize end-tidal CO2 level without other feedback. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for both groups proceeded from 10 minutes of basic life support to 10 minutes of advanced life support or return of spontaneous circulation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After 17 minutes of asphyxial arrest, mean end-tidal CO2 during 10 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 18 ± 9 torr in the standard group and 33 ± 15 torr in the end-tidal CO2 group (p = 0.004). The rate of return of spontaneous circulation was three of 14 (21%) in the standard group rate and nine of 14 (64%) in the end-tidal CO2 group (p = 0.05). After a 23-minute asphyxial arrest, neither end-tidal CO2 values (20 vs 26) nor return of spontaneous circulation rate (3/14 vs 1/14) differed between the standard and end-tidal CO2-guided groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our previously observed survival benefit of end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery after 20 minutes of asphyxial arrest was confirmed after 17 minutes of asphyxial arrest. The poor survival after 23 minutes of asphyxia shows that the benefit of end-tidal CO2-guided chest compression delivery is limited by severe asphyxia duration.
Authors: Allan R de Caen; Ian K Maconochie; Richard Aickin; Dianne L Atkins; Dominique Biarent; Anne-Marie Guerguerian; Monica E Kleinman; David A Kloeck; Peter A Meaney; Vinay M Nadkarni; Kee-Chong Ng; Gabrielle Nuthall; Amelia G Reis; Naoki Shimizu; James Tibballs; Remigio Veliz Pintos Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark S Link; Lauren C Berkow; Peter J Kudenchuk; Henry R Halperin; Erik P Hess; Vivek K Moitra; Robert W Neumar; Brian J O'Neil; James H Paxton; Scott M Silvers; Roger D White; Demetris Yannopoulos; Michael W Donnino Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Dianne L Atkins; Siobhan Everson-Stewart; Gena K Sears; Mohamud Daya; Martin H Osmond; Craig R Warden; Robert A Berg Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 29.690
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: 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: Caitlin E O'Brien; Polan T Santos; Ewa Kulikowicz; Shawn Adams; Jennifer K Lee; Elizabeth A Hunt; Raymond C Koehler; Donald H Shaffner Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-11-11