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: Hemodynamics in humans during conventional and experimental methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
    Author: Swenson RD, Weaver WD, Niskanen RA, Martin J, Dahlberg S.
    Journal: Circulation; 1988 Sep; 78(3):630-9. PubMed ID: 3409501.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]