Advanced

Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs

Liao, Qiuming LU ; Sjöberg, Trygve LU ; Paskevicius, Audrius LU ; Wohlfart, Björn LU and Steen, Stig LU (2010) In BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 10.
Abstract
Background: Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/ decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR. Methods: 30 kg pigs were anesthetized and intubated. After a base-line period and five minutes of ventricular fibrillation, manual CPR (n = 8) or LUCAS-CPR (n = 8) was started and run for 20 minutes. Professional paramedics gave manual chest compression's alternating in 2-minute periods. Ventilation, one breath for each 10 compressions, was given to all animals. Defibrillation and, if needed, adrenaline... (More)
Background: Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/ decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR. Methods: 30 kg pigs were anesthetized and intubated. After a base-line period and five minutes of ventricular fibrillation, manual CPR (n = 8) or LUCAS-CPR (n = 8) was started and run for 20 minutes. Professional paramedics gave manual chest compression's alternating in 2-minute periods. Ventilation, one breath for each 10 compressions, was given to all animals. Defibrillation and, if needed, adrenaline were given to obtain a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results: The mean coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the mechanical group, around 20 mmHg, compared to around 5 mmHg in the manual group. In the manual group 54 rib fractures occurred compared to 33 in the LUCAS group (p < 0.01). In the manual group one severe liver injury and one pressure pneumothorax were also seen. All 8 pigs in the mechanical group achieved ROSC, as compared with 3 pigs in the manual group. Conclusions: LUCAS-CPR gave significantly higher coronary perfusion pressure and significantly fewer rib fractures than manual CPR in this porcine model. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
volume
10
publisher
BioMed Central
external identifiers
  • wos:000284405700001
  • scopus:77958612587
ISSN
1471-2261
DOI
10.1186/1471-2261-10-53
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
1fc3c3e7-65f2-4227-ad2e-dac1f52f0bc3 (old id 1752603)
date added to LUP
2011-01-04 07:36:42
date last changed
2018-07-15 03:48:26
@article{1fc3c3e7-65f2-4227-ad2e-dac1f52f0bc3,
  abstract     = {Background: Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/ decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR. Methods: 30 kg pigs were anesthetized and intubated. After a base-line period and five minutes of ventricular fibrillation, manual CPR (n = 8) or LUCAS-CPR (n = 8) was started and run for 20 minutes. Professional paramedics gave manual chest compression's alternating in 2-minute periods. Ventilation, one breath for each 10 compressions, was given to all animals. Defibrillation and, if needed, adrenaline were given to obtain a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results: The mean coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (p &lt; 0.01) higher in the mechanical group, around 20 mmHg, compared to around 5 mmHg in the manual group. In the manual group 54 rib fractures occurred compared to 33 in the LUCAS group (p &lt; 0.01). In the manual group one severe liver injury and one pressure pneumothorax were also seen. All 8 pigs in the mechanical group achieved ROSC, as compared with 3 pigs in the manual group. Conclusions: LUCAS-CPR gave significantly higher coronary perfusion pressure and significantly fewer rib fractures than manual CPR in this porcine model.},
  author       = {Liao, Qiuming and Sjöberg, Trygve and Paskevicius, Audrius and Wohlfart, Björn and Steen, Stig},
  issn         = {1471-2261},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {BioMed Central},
  series       = {BMC Cardiovascular Disorders},
  title        = {Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-10-53},
  volume       = {10},
  year         = {2010},
}