Kapildeo Lotun1, Huu Tam Truong1, Kyoung-Chul Cha2, Hanan Alsakka1, Renan Gianotto-Oliveira3, Nicole Smith1, Prashant Rao1, Tyler Bien1, Shaun Chatelain1, Matthew C Kern1, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu4, Mathias Zuercher5, Karl B Kern6. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, Arizona. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju-si, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Medicine, Heart Institute (InCor), School of Medicine, Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 4. University of Arizona College of Public Health, Tucson, Arizona. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, Arizona. Electronic address: kernk@email.arizona.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal treatment approach for cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. BACKGROUND: CA can occur in the cath lab during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. While attempting to correct the precipitating cause of CA, several options are available to maintain vital organ perfusion. These include manual chest compressions, mechanical chest compressions, or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device. METHODS: Eighty swine (58 ± 10 kg) were studied. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery was occluded. Ventricular fibrillation (VFCA) was induced and circulatory support was provided with 1 of 4 techniques: either manual chest compressions (frequently interrupted), mechanical chest compressions with a piston device (LUCAS-2), an Impella 2.5 L percutaneously placed LVAD, or the combination of mechanical chest compressions and the percutaneous left ventricular assist device. The study protocol included 12 min of left main coronary occlusion, reperfusion, with defibrillation attempted after 15 min of VFCA. Primary outcome was favorable neurological function (CPC 1 or 2) at 24 h, while secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and hemodynamics. RESULTS: Manual chest compressions provided fewer neurologically intact surviving animals than the combination of a mechanical chest compressor and a percutaneous LVAD device (0% vs. 56%; p < 0.01), while no difference was found between the 2 mechanical approaches (28% vs. 35%: p = 0.75). Comparing integrated coronary perfusion pressure showed sequential improvement in hemodynamic support with mechanical devices (401 ± 230 vs. 1,337 ± 905 mm Hg/s; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Combining 2 mechanical devices provided superior 24-h survival with favorable neurological recovery compared with manual compressions during moderate duration VFCA associated with an acute coronary occlusion in the animal catheterization laboratory.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal treatment approach for cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. BACKGROUND: CA can occur in the cath lab during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. While attempting to correct the precipitating cause of CA, several options are available to maintain vital organ perfusion. These include manual chest compressions, mechanical chest compressions, or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device. METHODS: Eighty swine (58 ± 10 kg) were studied. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery was occluded. Ventricular fibrillation (VFCA) was induced and circulatory support was provided with 1 of 4 techniques: either manual chest compressions (frequently interrupted), mechanical chest compressions with a piston device (LUCAS-2), an Impella 2.5 L percutaneously placed LVAD, or the combination of mechanical chest compressions and the percutaneous left ventricular assist device. The study protocol included 12 min of left main coronary occlusion, reperfusion, with defibrillation attempted after 15 min of VFCA. Primary outcome was favorable neurological function (CPC 1 or 2) at 24 h, while secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and hemodynamics. RESULTS: Manual chest compressions provided fewer neurologically intact surviving animals than the combination of a mechanical chest compressor and a percutaneous LVAD device (0% vs. 56%; p < 0.01), while no difference was found between the 2 mechanical approaches (28% vs. 35%: p = 0.75). Comparing integrated coronary perfusion pressure showed sequential improvement in hemodynamic support with mechanical devices (401 ± 230 vs. 1,337 ± 905 mm Hg/s; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Combining 2 mechanical devices provided superior 24-h survival with favorable neurological recovery compared with manual compressions during moderate duration VFCA associated with an acute coronary occlusion in the animal catheterization laboratory.
Authors: Vassili Panagides; Henrik Vase; Sachin P Shah; Mir B Basir; Julien Mancini; Hayaan Kamran; Supria Batra; Marc Laine; Hans Eiskjær; Steffen Christensen; Mina Karami; Franck Paganelli; Jose P S Henriques; Laurent Bonello Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.241