These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison Between 30:1 and 30:2 Compression-to-ventilation Ratios for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Are Two Ventilations Necessary?
    Author: Cha KC, Kim YW, Kim TH, Jung WJ, Yook H, Choi E, Cha YS, Kim OH, Kim H, Lee KH, Hwang SO.
    Journal: Acad Emerg Med; 2015 Nov; 22(11):1261-6. PubMed ID: 26470011.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Controversy is continuing over the need for ventilation and the optimal compression-ventilation (CV) ratio during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to comparatively elucidate the effect on hemodynamics and arterial oxygen saturation of a single ventilation relative to two consecutive ventilations during CPR in a dog model of cardiac arrest. METHODS: Twenty mongrel dogs were divided into two groups. After 3 minutes of ventricular fibrillation (VF), the single-ventilation group received CPR with a 30:1 CV ratio, and the two-ventilation group received CPR with a 30:2 CV ratio, all with room air for 7 minutes. Thereafter, continuous chest compressions and intermittent ventilation at rate of 10 per minute were followed for both groups for 10 minutes. Hemodynamic parameters, arterial blood gas profiles, and variables from CPR were compared at baseline and at 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes after induction of VF. RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters including aortic systolic and diastolic pressures, right atrial systolic and diastolic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide tension, and arterial blood gas profiles including arterial oxygen tension, arterial oxygen saturation, and arterial carbon dioxide tension were not different between two groups during CPR. In the 30:1 group, the period of compression interruption was shorter and chest compression fraction was higher than that in the 30:2 group (6 sec/min vs. 10.9 sec/min, p < 0.001; 90.0% vs. 81.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CPR with a 30:1 CV ratio, compared to CPR with a 30:2 CV ratio, results in comparable arterial oxygenation saturation and hemodynamics.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]