A comparison of prolonged manual and mechanical external chest compression after cardiac arrest in dogs

• Published in: Resuscitation 1996-10, Vol.32 (3), p.241-250
• Main Authors: Wik, Lars, Bircher, Nicholas G., Safar, Peter
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods; Dogs; Electric Countershock; ETCO 2; Haemodynamics; Heart Arrest - physiopathology; Heart Arrest - therapy; Hemodynamics - physiology; Mechanical chest compression; Models, Cardiovascular; Outcome; Prospective Studies; Respiration
• ISSN: 0300-9572; 1873-1570
• DOI: 10.1016/0300-9572(96)00957-4

The effects of manual and a new mechanical chest compression device (Heartsaver ® 2000) during prolonged CPR with respect to haemodynamics and outcome were tested in a prospective, randomized, controlled experimental trial during ventricular fibrillation in 12 dogs of 9–13 kg body weight after 1 min of cardiac arrest. During the first 10 min of CPR the dogs were resuscitated according to the Basic Life Support (BLS) algorithm, followed by 20 min of Advanced Life Support (ALS) algorithm. After 30 min of CPR both manual and mechanical CPR groups were resuscitated following a standardized ALS protocol. During CPR, coronary perfusion pressure and end tidal CO 2 were greater with mechanical CPR. All animals were successfully resuscitated and neurological deficit scores were not different. The CPR trauma score was less in the mechanical group. Mechanical external chest compression provided better haemodynamics than the manual technique, though outcome did not differ. Both optimally performed manual and mechanical techniques produce flow sufficient to maintain organ viability for 30 min of CPR after a 1 min arrest interval.