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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR.    Methods  30 kg pigs were anesthetized and intubated. After a base-line period and five minutes of ventricular fibrillation, manual CPR (n = 8) or LUCAS-CPR (n = 8) was started and run for 20 minutes. Professional paramedics gave manual chest compression's alternating in 2-minute periods. Ventilation, one breath for each 10 compressions, was given to all animals. Defibrillation and, if needed, adrenaline were given to obtain a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).    Results  The mean coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the mechanical group, around 20 mmHg, compared to around 5 mmHg in the manual group. In the manual group 54 rib fractures occurred compared to 33 in the LUCAS group (p < 0.01). In the manual group one severe liver injury and one pressure pneumothorax were also seen. All 8 pigs in the mechanical group achieved ROSC, as compared with 3 pigs in the manual group.    Conclusions  LUCAS-CPR gave significantly higher coronary perfusion pressure and significantly fewer rib fractures than manual CPR in this porcine model.

Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs