English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Hemodynamics in humans during conventional and experimental methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.