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

Author:

Swenson R D1,Weaver W D1,Niskanen R A1,Martin J1,Dahlberg S1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Cardiology, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98104.

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3