Cargando…

Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices are widely used to rescue patients from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between a motor-driven, automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cha, Kyoung-Chul, Kim, Hyung Il, Kim, Yong Won, Ahn, Gyo Jin, Kim, Yoon Seob, Kim, Sun Ju, Lee, Jun Hyuk, Oh Hwang, Sung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31469891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221965
_version_ 1783447409142005760
author Cha, Kyoung-Chul
Kim, Hyung Il
Kim, Yong Won
Ahn, Gyo Jin
Kim, Yoon Seob
Kim, Sun Ju
Lee, Jun Hyuk
Oh Hwang, Sung
author_facet Cha, Kyoung-Chul
Kim, Hyung Il
Kim, Yong Won
Ahn, Gyo Jin
Kim, Yoon Seob
Kim, Sun Ju
Lee, Jun Hyuk
Oh Hwang, Sung
author_sort Cha, Kyoung-Chul
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices are widely used to rescue patients from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between a motor-driven, automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: After 2 minutes of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), Yorkshire pigs (weight 35–60 kg) received CPR with an automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic CPR device (X-CPR group, n = 13) or the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS group, n = 12). Basic life support for 6 minutes and advanced cardiovascular life support for 12 minutes, including defibrillation and epinephrine administration, were provided. Hemodynamic parameters and resuscitation outcomes, including return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 24-hour survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 24 hours, were evaluated. RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure were not significantly different between the two groups. Resuscitation outcomes were also not significantly different between the groups (X-CPR vs. LUCAS; rate of ROSC: 31% vs 25%, p = 1.000; 24-hour survival rate: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645; neurological outcome with CPC ≤2: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645). Also no significant difference in incidence complications associated with resuscitation was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: CPR with a motor-driven X-CPR and CPR with the LUCAS produced similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes in a swine model of cardiac arrest.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6716643
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67166432019-09-16 Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest Cha, Kyoung-Chul Kim, Hyung Il Kim, Yong Won Ahn, Gyo Jin Kim, Yoon Seob Kim, Sun Ju Lee, Jun Hyuk Oh Hwang, Sung PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices are widely used to rescue patients from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between a motor-driven, automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: After 2 minutes of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), Yorkshire pigs (weight 35–60 kg) received CPR with an automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic CPR device (X-CPR group, n = 13) or the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS group, n = 12). Basic life support for 6 minutes and advanced cardiovascular life support for 12 minutes, including defibrillation and epinephrine administration, were provided. Hemodynamic parameters and resuscitation outcomes, including return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 24-hour survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 24 hours, were evaluated. RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure were not significantly different between the two groups. Resuscitation outcomes were also not significantly different between the groups (X-CPR vs. LUCAS; rate of ROSC: 31% vs 25%, p = 1.000; 24-hour survival rate: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645; neurological outcome with CPC ≤2: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645). Also no significant difference in incidence complications associated with resuscitation was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: CPR with a motor-driven X-CPR and CPR with the LUCAS produced similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes in a swine model of cardiac arrest. Public Library of Science 2019-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6716643/ /pubmed/31469891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221965 Text en © 2019 Cha et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cha, Kyoung-Chul
Kim, Hyung Il
Kim, Yong Won
Ahn, Gyo Jin
Kim, Yoon Seob
Kim, Sun Ju
Lee, Jun Hyuk
Oh Hwang, Sung
Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title_full Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title_fullStr Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title_short Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest
title_sort comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and lucas in a swine model of cardiac arrest
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31469891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221965
work_keys_str_mv AT chakyoungchul comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT kimhyungil comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT kimyongwon comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT ahngyojin comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT kimyoonseob comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT kimsunju comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT leejunhyuk comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest
AT ohhwangsung comparisonofhemodynamiceffectsandresuscitationoutcomesbetweenautomaticsimultaneoussternothoraciccardiopulmonaryresuscitationdeviceandlucasinaswinemodelofcardiacarrest