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: A physiologic comparison of external cardiac massage techniques.
    Author: Newton JR, Glower DD, Wolfe JA, Tyson GS, Spratt JA, Fenely MP, Rankin JS, Olsen CO.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1988 May; 95(5):892-901. PubMed ID: 3361936.
    Abstract:
    On the basis of recent investigation, controversy has arisen regarding which of several cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods optimizes hemodynamics. The present study was designed to compare five recently described chest compression techniques: high-impulse manual chest compression at 150/min, mechanical compression at 60/min with simultaneous ventilation, mechanical compression at 60/min with simultaneous ventilation and either systolic or diastolic abdominal compression, and pneumatic vest compression at 60/min. Eight dogs were chronically instrumented with electromagnetic flow probes in the ascending and descending aorta while matched micromanometers measured aortic, left ventricular, and pleural pressures. At study, each dog was anesthetized with morphine, intubated, and the heart was fibrillated by rapid ventricular pacing. The five cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods were performed randomly in each preparation within 7 to 10 minutes of arrest. In four dogs, brachiocephalic blood flow was computed as total cardiac output minus descending aortic blood flow, and in all dogs coronary perfusion pressure was calculated as mean diastolic aortic pressure minus mean diastolic left ventricular pressure. Average cardiac output for seven studies was 662 +/- 61 ml/min with high-impulse manual compression, 340 +/- 46 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation, 336 +/- 45 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with systolic abdominal compression, 366 +/- 52 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with diastolic abdominal compression, and 196 +/- 29 ml/min with vest resuscitation (high-impulse manual compression significantly greater than other techniques by multivariate analysis, p less than 0.05). Brachiocephalic blood flow generally followed cardiac output and was statistically the greatest with high-impulse manual compression at 273 +/- 47 ml/min (p less than 0.05). Finally, high-impulse manual compression provided the highest coronary perfusion pressure of 31 +/- 4 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) compared to 23 +/- 2 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation, 23 +/- 2 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with systolic abdominal compression, 23 +/- 3 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with diastolic abdominal compression, and 11 +/- 2 mm Hg for vest resuscitation. These data demonstrate that high-impulse manual compression generated physiologically and statistically superior hemodynamics when compared with other methods in this model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]