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: The comparative pathology of open chest vs. mechanical closed chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs.
    Author: Badylak SF, Kern KB, Tacker WA, Ewy GA, Janas W, Carter A.
    Journal: Resuscitation; 1986 Jul; 13(4):249-64. PubMed ID: 3020663.
    Abstract:
    We compared the pathologic changes following open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCCPR) vs. closed chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCCPR) in 28 healthy mongrel dogs subjected to experimentally induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). VF was induced in 29 dogs. No treatment was given for 3 min, then mechanical CCCPR was given for the next 12 min. External defibrillation (80 joules) was then attempted twice. One dog was resuscitated. The remaining 28 dogs were divided into 2 groups of 14 each. Group A received continued CCCPR and group B received OCCPR. All dogs received advanced cardiac life support and were followed until resuscitated or dead. All dogs were autopsied and gross pathology scores and histopathology scores were determined for each animal, and for each of 19 separate tissues within each animal. The mean gross pathology scores for the following tissues were significantly greater for dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR: skin (3.4 vs. 1.2; P less than 0.001), subcutaneous tissue (3.7 vs. 0.6; P less than 0.001), chest wall muscle (3.7 vs. 0.5; P less than 0.001), and pleura (1.9 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001). The mean total gross pathology score was also greater in dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR (17.2 vs. 7.7; P less than 0.001). The mean histopathology scores for the following tissues were significantly greater for dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR: skin (2.5 vs. 0.0; P less than 0.001), subcutaneous tissue (2.2 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001), muscle (2.3 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001), pleura (1.6 vs. 0.0; P less than 0.001), pericardium (1.4 vs. 0.2; P less than 0.01), epicardium (2.5 vs. 0.2; P less than 0.001), myocardium (2.5 vs. 0.3; P less than 0.001), and endocardium (1.9 vs. 0.5; P less than 0.01). The mean total histopathology score was also greater in dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR (20.1 vs. 7.4; P less than 0.001). The histopathology score for brain tissue was greater for the CCCPR group than for the OCCPR group (1.9 vs. 0.4; P less than 0.05). This study showed that OCCPR in dogs following VF caused more severe pathologic changes than CCCPR. These changes were attributed to thoracotomy-induced chest wall injury and to internal defibrillation induced myocardial injury. However, OCCPR caused less severe microscopic brain lesions than CCCPR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]