Literature DB >> 7712762

Blood flow and perfusion pressure during open-chest versus closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pigs.

S Rubertsson1, A Grenvik, L Wiklund.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the blood flow and perfusion pressure differences observed during open- vs. closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), including the effects of epinephrine and sodium bicarbonate administration.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: Experimental animal laboratory in a university hospital.
SUBJECTS: A total of 35 anesthetized piglets.
INTERVENTIONS: After tracheostomy and insertion of arterial, right atrial, and pulmonary arterial catheters, thoracotomy was performed with placement of a pulmonary arterial flow probe and left atrial catheter. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and followed by 15 mins of either open-chest (n = 14) or closed-chest (n = 21) CPR. A 4-min infusion of 50 mmol of sodium bicarbonate or saline was added at the start of CPR. After 8 mins of CPR, 0.5 mg of epinephrine was given intravenously, and after 15 mins, direct current (DC) shocks were used to revert the heart to sinus rhythm.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood flow was studied using transit-time ultrasound flowmetry. In an extended group, intrathoracic pressure was measured for calculation of transmural pressure. Before epinephrine administration, mean pulmonary arterial flow (cardiac output) was reduced: a) during closed-chest CPR relatively more than pulmonary perfusion pressure but in proportion to systemic perfusion pressure; b) during open-chest CPR relatively less than pulmonary perfusion pressure but still in proportion to systemic perfusion pressure. Epinephrine administration temporarily increased systemic perfusion pressure during both closed- and open-chest CPR but temporarily decreased pulmonary perfusion pressure only during closed-chest CPR. After epinephrine administration, cardiac output temporarily decreased during both closed-and open-chest CPR.
CONCLUSIONS: Open-chest CPR resulted in better cardiac output and systemic perfusion pressure than closed-chest CPR. However, cardiac output values obtained with both methods were much lower than previously reported. After epinephrine administration, cardiac output became extremely low with both methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7712762     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199504000-00021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  6 in total

Review 1.  Pathophysiology and pathogenesis of post-resuscitation myocardial stunning.

Authors:  Athanasios Chalkias; Theodoros Xanthos
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.214

2.  Six-year prospective audit of 'scoop and run' for chest-reopening after cardiac arrest in a cardiac surgical ward setting.

Authors:  Nicholas J Lees; Sarah J Powell; Jonathan H Mackay
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-08-09

3.  Open chest selective aortic arch perfusion vs open cardiac massage as a means of perfusion during in exsanguination cardiac arrest: a comparison of coronary hemodynamics in swine.

Authors:  Joseph Edwards; Hossam Abdou; Neerav Patel; Eric Lang; Michael J Richmond; Todd E Rasmussen; Thomas M Scalea; Jonathan J Morrison
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.693

4.  Post-cardiac arrest syndrome: Mechanisms and evaluation of adrenal insufficiency.

Authors:  Athanasios Chalkias; Theodoros Xanthos
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-02-04

Review 5.  Echocardiography for patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a primer for intensive care physicians.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2017-02-02

6.  Preconditioning but not postconditioning treatment with resveratrol substantially ameliorates post‑resuscitation myocardial dysfunction through the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway.

Authors:  Haihong Zhang; Qinqin Wu; Zhi Wan; Yu Cao; Zhi Zeng
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 2.952

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.