Continuous chest compression resuscitation in arrested swine with upper airway inspiratory obstruction☆
Received 15 July 2009; received in revised form 11 January 2010; accepted 18 January 2010. published online 22 February 2010.
Abstract
Background
This study was designed to compare 24-h survival rates and neurological function of swine in cardiac arrest treated with one of three forms of simulated basic life support CPR.
Methods
Thirty swine were randomized equally among three experimental groups to receive either 30:2 CPR with an unobstructed endotracheal tube (ET) or continuous chest compression (CCC) CPR with an unobstructed ET or CCC CPR with a collapsable rubber sleeve on the ET allowing air outflow but completely restricting air inflow. The swine were anesthetized but not paralyzed. Two min of untreated VF was followed by 9min of simulated single rescuer bystander CPR. In the 30:2 CPR group, each set of 30 chest compressions was followed by a 15-s pause to simulate the realistic duration of interrupted chest compressions required for a single rescuer to deliver 2 mouth-to-mouth ventilations. The other two groups were provided continuous chest compressions (CCC) without assisted ventilations. At 11min post-arrest a biphasic defibrillation shock (150J) was administered followed by a period of advanced cardiac life support.
Results
In the 30:2 group, 8 of 10 animals had good neurological function at 24-h post-resuscitation. In the CCC open airway group, 10 of 10, and in the CCC inspiratory obstructed group, 9 of 10. The number of shocks (P<0.05) and epinephrine doses (P<0.05) required for ROSC was greater in the 30:2 CPR group than in the other two groups.
Conclusions
There were no differences in 24-h survival with good neurological function among these three different CPR protocols.
aUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine's Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States
bDepartment of Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States
cDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States
dDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States
eDepartment of Neurology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States
fDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Basel, Switzerland
Corresponding author at: University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724, United States. Tel.: +1 520 626 2477; fax: +1 520 626 4333.
ABSTRACT