z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Hemodynamics in humans during conventional and experimental methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Author(s) -
Robert Swenson,
W. Douglas Weaver,
Robert A. Niskanen,
Jenny S. Martin,
Seth T. Dahlberg
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
circulation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 7.795
H-Index - 607
eISSN - 1524-4539
pISSN - 0009-7322
DOI - 10.1161/01.cir.78.3.630
Subject(s) - medicine , coronary perfusion pressure , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , aortic pressure , hemodynamics , perfusion , cardiology , resuscitation , ventilation (architecture) , anesthesia , mechanical engineering , engineering
High-fidelity hemodynamic recordings of aortic and right atrial pressures and the coronary perfusion gradient (the difference between aortic and atrial pressure) were made in nine patients during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Findings during conventional manual CPR were compared with those during high-impulse CPR (rate, 120 cycles/min with a shorter compression:relaxation ratio) as well as during pneumatic vest CPR with and without simultaneous ventilation and abdominal binding. Aortic peak pressure during conventional CPR averaged 61 +/- 29 mm Hg but varied widely (range, 39-126 mm Hg) among patients. Although the magnitude of improvement was modest, the high-impulse method was the only technique tested that significantly elevated both aortic peak pressure and the coronary perfusion gradient during cardiac arrest. During conventional CPR, aortic pressure rose from 61 +/- 29 to 80 +/- 39 mm Hg during high-impulse CPR, and the gradient rose from 9 +/- 11 to 14 +/- 15 mm Hg, respectively; p less than 0.01. The pneumatic vest method significantly improved peak aortic pressure but not the coronary perfusion gradient. Simultaneous ventilation and chest compression created high end-expiratory pressure and lowered the coronary perfusion gradient. Abdominal binding had no significant hemodynamic effects. This evaluation of experimental resuscitation methods in humans shows that the high-impulse chest compression method augments aortic pressure over levels achieved during conventional CPR methods; however, the improvement in pressure is modest and may not be clinically important. Simultaneous ventilation as well as abdominal binding during CPR were associated with no benefit; in fact, simultaneous ventilation appears to adversely affect cardiac perfusion and, therefore, should not be used during clinical resuscitation.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom