Comparison of mechanical techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Survival and neurologic outcome in dogs

Karl B Kern, Alice B. Carter, Russell L. Showen, William D. Voorhees, Charles F. Babbs, Willis A. Tacker, Gordon A. Ewy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Three currently available mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were compared using a canine cardiac arrest model. Twenty-four-hour survival without neurologic deficit was the goal. A group of 30 large mongrel dogs was divided equally among Thumper® CPR, simultaneous compression and ventilation (SCV) CPR, and vest CPR. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically, and after 3 minutes of no intervention, one of the three types of mechanical CPR was performed for 17 minutes. SCV CPR and vest CPR produced significantly greater aortic and right atrial systolic pressures than Thumper CPR (P < .03). The SCV CPR technique also produced significantly higher aortic diastolic pressure and right atrial diastolic pressure than either of the other methods (P < .03). However, coronary perfusion pressure was not different among the three mechanical methods. No differences in immediate resucitation, 24-hour survival, or neurologic deficit scores at 24 hours were found. Neither SCV nor the vest techniques of CPR appear better for survival or neurologic outcome than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed with the Thumper.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)190-195
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1987

Fingerprint

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Nervous System
Dogs
Ventilation
Atrial Pressure
Neurologic Manifestations
Blood Pressure
Ventricular Fibrillation
Heart Arrest
Canidae
Arterial Pressure
Perfusion
Pressure
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Advanced cardiac life support
  • cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • simultaneous compression and ventilationcardiopulmonary resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of mechanical techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation : Survival and neurologic outcome in dogs. / Kern, Karl B; Carter, Alice B.; Showen, Russell L.; Voorhees, William D.; Babbs, Charles F.; Tacker, Willis A.; Ewy, Gordon A.

In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1987, p. 190-195.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kern, Karl B ; Carter, Alice B. ; Showen, Russell L. ; Voorhees, William D. ; Babbs, Charles F. ; Tacker, Willis A. ; Ewy, Gordon A. / Comparison of mechanical techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation : Survival and neurologic outcome in dogs. In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 1987 ; Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 190-195.
@article{e65a609c71904110867617f404d17228,
title = "Comparison of mechanical techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Survival and neurologic outcome in dogs",
abstract = "Three currently available mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were compared using a canine cardiac arrest model. Twenty-four-hour survival without neurologic deficit was the goal. A group of 30 large mongrel dogs was divided equally among Thumper{\circledR} CPR, simultaneous compression and ventilation (SCV) CPR, and vest CPR. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically, and after 3 minutes of no intervention, one of the three types of mechanical CPR was performed for 17 minutes. SCV CPR and vest CPR produced significantly greater aortic and right atrial systolic pressures than Thumper CPR (P < .03). The SCV CPR technique also produced significantly higher aortic diastolic pressure and right atrial diastolic pressure than either of the other methods (P < .03). However, coronary perfusion pressure was not different among the three mechanical methods. No differences in immediate resucitation, 24-hour survival, or neurologic deficit scores at 24 hours were found. Neither SCV nor the vest techniques of CPR appear better for survival or neurologic outcome than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed with the Thumper.",
keywords = "Advanced cardiac life support, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation, simultaneous compression and ventilationcardiopulmonary resuscitation",
author = "Kern, {Karl B} and Carter, {Alice B.} and Showen, {Russell L.} and Voorhees, {William D.} and Babbs, {Charles F.} and Tacker, {Willis A.} and Ewy, {Gordon A.}",
year = "1987",
doi = "10.1016/0735-6757(87)90318-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "190--195",
journal = "American Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0735-6757",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of mechanical techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation

T2 - Survival and neurologic outcome in dogs

AU - Kern, Karl B

AU - Carter, Alice B.

AU - Showen, Russell L.

AU - Voorhees, William D.

AU - Babbs, Charles F.

AU - Tacker, Willis A.

AU - Ewy, Gordon A.

PY - 1987

Y1 - 1987

N2 - Three currently available mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were compared using a canine cardiac arrest model. Twenty-four-hour survival without neurologic deficit was the goal. A group of 30 large mongrel dogs was divided equally among Thumper® CPR, simultaneous compression and ventilation (SCV) CPR, and vest CPR. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically, and after 3 minutes of no intervention, one of the three types of mechanical CPR was performed for 17 minutes. SCV CPR and vest CPR produced significantly greater aortic and right atrial systolic pressures than Thumper CPR (P < .03). The SCV CPR technique also produced significantly higher aortic diastolic pressure and right atrial diastolic pressure than either of the other methods (P < .03). However, coronary perfusion pressure was not different among the three mechanical methods. No differences in immediate resucitation, 24-hour survival, or neurologic deficit scores at 24 hours were found. Neither SCV nor the vest techniques of CPR appear better for survival or neurologic outcome than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed with the Thumper.

AB - Three currently available mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were compared using a canine cardiac arrest model. Twenty-four-hour survival without neurologic deficit was the goal. A group of 30 large mongrel dogs was divided equally among Thumper® CPR, simultaneous compression and ventilation (SCV) CPR, and vest CPR. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically, and after 3 minutes of no intervention, one of the three types of mechanical CPR was performed for 17 minutes. SCV CPR and vest CPR produced significantly greater aortic and right atrial systolic pressures than Thumper CPR (P < .03). The SCV CPR technique also produced significantly higher aortic diastolic pressure and right atrial diastolic pressure than either of the other methods (P < .03). However, coronary perfusion pressure was not different among the three mechanical methods. No differences in immediate resucitation, 24-hour survival, or neurologic deficit scores at 24 hours were found. Neither SCV nor the vest techniques of CPR appear better for survival or neurologic outcome than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed with the Thumper.

KW - Advanced cardiac life support

KW - cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - simultaneous compression and ventilationcardiopulmonary resuscitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023340775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023340775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90318-4

DO - 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90318-4

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 190

EP - 195

JO - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0735-6757

IS - 3

ER -