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.
- Advanced cardiac life support
- cardiopulmonary resuscitation
- mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation
- simultaneous compression and ventilationcardiopulmonary resuscitation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Emergency Medicine