Advances in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
ABSTRACT This article focuses on important advances in the science of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the last decade that have led to a significant improvement in understanding the complex physiology of cardiac arrest and critical interventions for the initial management of cardiac arrest and postresuscitation treatment. Special emphasis is given to the basic simple ways to improve circulation, vital organ perfusion pressures, and the grave prognosis of sudden cardiac death.
- SourceAvailable from: Joshua E Tsitlik[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) results from intrathoracic pressure fluctuations or direct cardiac compression remains controversial. From modeling considerations, blood flow due to intrathoracic pressure fluctuations should be insensitive to compression rate over a wide range, but dependent on the applied force and compression duration. If direct compression of the heart plays a major role, however, flow should be dependent on compression rate and force, but above a threshold, insensitive to compression duration. These differences in hemodynamics produced by changes in rate and duration form a basis for determining whether blood flow during CPR results from intrathoracic pressure fluctuations or from direct cardiac compression. Manual CPR was studied in eight anesthetized, 21 to 32 kg dogs after induction of ventricular fibrillation. There was no surgical manipulation of the chest. Myocardial and cerebral blood flows were determined with radioactive microspheres. At nearly constant peak sternal force (378 to 426 newtons), flow was significantly increased when the duration of compression was increased from 14 +/- 1% to 46 +/- 3% of the cycle at a rate of 60/min. Flow was unchanged, however, after an increase in rate from 60 to 150/min at constant compression duration. The hemodynamics of manual CPR were next compared with those produced by vest inflation with simultaneous ventilation (vest CPR) in eight other dogs. Vest CPR changed intrathoracic pressure without direct cardiac compression, since sternal displacement was less than 0.8 cm. At a rate of 150/min, with similar duration and right atrial peak pressure, manual and vest CPR produced similar flow and perfusion pressures. Finally, the hemodynamics of manual CPR were compared with the hemodynamics of direct cardiac compression after thoracotomy. Cardiac deformation was measured and held nearly constant during changes in rate and duration. As opposed to changes accompanying manual CPR, there was no change in perfusion pressures when duration was increased from 15% to 45% of the cycle at a constant rate of 60/min. There was, however, a significant increase in perfusion pressures when rate was increased from 60 to 150/min at a constant duration of 45%. Thus, vital organ perfusion pressures and flow during manual external chest compression are dependent on the duration of compression, but not on rates of 60 or 150/min. These data are similar to those observed for vest CPR, where intrathoracic pressure is manipulated without sternal displacement, but opposite of those observed for direct cardiac compression.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)Circulation 04/1986; 73(3):539-50. DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.73.3.539 · 14.95 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The goals of this study were to quantify the effects of epinephrine on myocardial and cerebral blood flow during conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and CPR with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation and to test the hypothesis that epinephrine would improve myocardial and cerebral blood flow by preventing collapse of intrathoracic arteries and by vasoconstricting other vascular beds, thereby increasing perfusion pressures. Cerebral and myocardial blood flow were measured by the radiolabeled microsphere technique, which we have previously validated during CPR. We studied the effect of epinephrine on established arterial collapse during CPR with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation with the abdomen bound or unbound. Epinephrine reversed arterial collapse, thereby eliminating the systolic gradient between aortic and carotid pressures and increasing cerebral perfusion pressure and cerebral blood flow while decreasing blood flow to other cephalic tissues. Epinephrine produced higher cerebral and myocardial perfusion pressures during CPR with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation when the abdomen was unbound rather than bound because abdominal binding increased intracranial and venous pressures. In other experiments we compared the effect of epinephrine on blood flow during 1 hr of either conventional CPR or with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation with the abdomen unbound. Epinephrine infusion during conventional CPR produced an average cerebral blood flow of 15 ml/min . 100 g (41 +/- 15% of control) and an average myocardial blood flow of 18 ml/min . 100 g (15 +/- 8% of control). In our previous studies, cerebral and myocardial blood flow were less than 3 +/- 1% of control during conventional CPR without epinephrine. Although flows during CPR with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation without epinephrine were initially higher than those during conventional CPR, arterial collapse developed after 20 min, limiting cerebral and myocardial blood flow. The use of epinephrine throughout 50 min of CPR with simultaneous chest compression-ventilation maintained cerebral blood flow at 22 +/- 2 ml/min . 100 g (73 +/- 25% control) and left ventricular blood flow at 38 +/- 9 ml/min . 100 g (28 +/- 8% control). The improved blood flows with epinephrine correlated with improved electroencephalographic activity and restoration of spontaneous circulation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)Circulation 05/1984; 69(4):822-35. DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.69.4.822 · 14.95 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: More than 300,000 people die each year of cardiac arrest. Studies have shown that raising vascular pressures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can improve survival and that vascular pressures can be raised by increasing intrathoracic pressure. To produce periodic increases in intrathoracic pressure, we developed a pneumatically cycled circumferential thoracic vest system and compared the results of the use of this system in CPR (vest CPR) with those of manual CPR. In phase 1 of the study, aortic and right-atrial pressures were measured during both vest CPR (60 inflations per minute) and manual CPR in 15 patients in whom a mean (+/- SD) of 42 +/- 16 minutes of initial manual CPR had been unsuccessful. Vest CPR was also carried out on 14 other patients in whom pressure measurements were not made. In phase 2 of the study, short-term survival was assessed in 34 additional patients randomly assigned to undergo vest CPR (17 patients) or continued manual CPR (17 patients) after initial manual CPR (duration, 11 +/- 4 minutes) had been unsuccessful. In phase 1 of the study, vest CPR increased the peak aortic pressure from 78 +/- 26 mm Hg to 138 +/- 28 mm Hg (P < 0.001) and the coronary perfusion pressure from 15 +/- 8 mm Hg to 23 +/- 11 mm Hg (P < 0.003). Despite prolonged unsuccessful manual CPR, spontaneous circulation returned with vest CPR in 4 of the 29 patients. In phase 2 of the study, spontaneous circulation returned in 8 of the 17 patients who underwent vest CPR as compared with only 3 of the 17 patients who received continued manual CPR (P = 0.14). More patients in the vest-CPR group than in the manual-CPR group were alive 6 hours after attempted resuscitation (6 of 17 vs. 1 of 17) and 24 hours after attempted resuscitation (3 of 17 vs. 1 of 17), but none survived to leave the hospital. In this preliminary study, vest CPR, despite its late application, successfully increased aortic pressure and coronary perfusion pressure, and there was an insignificant trend toward a greater likelihood of the return of spontaneous circulation with vest CPR than with continued manual CPR. The effect of vest CPR on survival, however, is currently unknown and will require further study.New England Journal of Medicine 09/1993; 329(11):762-8. DOI:10.1056/NEJM199309093291104 · 54.42 Impact Factor