The American journal of emergency medicine · 2010
Outcomes from low versus high-flow cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a swine model of cardiac arrest.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Halperin Henry R, Lee Kichang, Zviman Menekhem, Illindala Uday, Lardo Albert, Kolandaivelu Aravindan, Paradis Norman A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is improved by greater vital organ blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We tested the hypothesis that myocardial flow above the threshold needed for ROSC may be associated with greater vital organ injury and worse outcome.
METHODS: Aortic and right atrial pressures were measured with micromanometers in 27 swine. After 10 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, chest compression was performed with an automatic, load-distributing band. Animals were randomly assigned to receive flows just sufficient for ROSC (low flow: target coronary perfusion pressure = 12 mm Hg) or well above the minimally effective level (high flow: coronary perfusion pressure = 30 mm Hg). Myocardial flow was measured with microspheres, defibrillation was performed after 3.5 minutes of CPR, and ejection fraction was measured with echocardiography.
RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved by 9 of 9 animals in the high-flow group and 15 of 18 in the low-flow group. All animals in the high-flow group defibrillated initially into a perfusing rhythm, whereas 12 of 15 animals achieving ROSC in the low-flow group defibrillated initially into pulseless electrical activity (P < .05, Fisher exact test). Compared with animals in the low-flow group, animals in the high-flow group had shorter resuscitation times, higher mean aortic pressures at ROSC, and higher ejection fractions at 2 hours post-ROSC (all P < .05).
CONCLUSION: High-flow CPR significantly improved arrest hemodynamics, rates of ROSC, and post-ROSC indicators of myocardial status, all indicating less injury with higher flows. No evidence of organ injury from vital organ blood flow substantially above the threshold for ROSC was found.
METHODS: Aortic and right atrial pressures were measured with micromanometers in 27 swine. After 10 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, chest compression was performed with an automatic, load-distributing band. Animals were randomly assigned to receive flows just sufficient for ROSC (low flow: target coronary perfusion pressure = 12 mm Hg) or well above the minimally effective level (high flow: coronary perfusion pressure = 30 mm Hg). Myocardial flow was measured with microspheres, defibrillation was performed after 3.5 minutes of CPR, and ejection fraction was measured with echocardiography.
RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved by 9 of 9 animals in the high-flow group and 15 of 18 in the low-flow group. All animals in the high-flow group defibrillated initially into a perfusing rhythm, whereas 12 of 15 animals achieving ROSC in the low-flow group defibrillated initially into pulseless electrical activity (P < .05, Fisher exact test). Compared with animals in the low-flow group, animals in the high-flow group had shorter resuscitation times, higher mean aortic pressures at ROSC, and higher ejection fractions at 2 hours post-ROSC (all P < .05).
CONCLUSION: High-flow CPR significantly improved arrest hemodynamics, rates of ROSC, and post-ROSC indicators of myocardial status, all indicating less injury with higher flows. No evidence of organ injury from vital organ blood flow substantially above the threshold for ROSC was found.