• Ryan M Kammeyer, Michael S Pargett, and Ann E Rundell.
• Indiana School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
• Emerg Med J. 2014 May 1;31(5):394-400.

ObjectiveBystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provides treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest since perfusion of vital organs is critical to resuscitation. Alternatives to standard CPR are evaluated for effectiveness based upon outcome predictive metrics and survival studies. This study focuses on evaluating the performance of rhythmic-only abdominal compression CPR (OAC-CPR) relative to chest compression (CC-CPR) using a complementary suite of mechanistically based CPR outcome predictors. Combined, these predictors provide insight on the transduction of compression-induced pressures into flow perfusing vital organs.MethodsIntrasubject comparisons between the CPR techniques were made during multiple 2-min intervals of induced fibrillation in 17 porcine subjects. Arterial pO2, cardiac output, carotid blood flow, coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), minute alveolar ventilation (MAV), end-tidal CO2, and time from defibrillation to the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were recorded. Organ damage was assessed by necropsy.ResultsCompared with CC-CPR, OAC-CPR had higher pressure and ventilation metrics with increased relative CPP (+16 mm Hg), MAV (+75/ml/min/kg) and a lower reduction in arterial pO2(-22% baseline), but suffered from lower carotid flows (-9.3 ml/min). No significant difference was found comparing cardiac outputs. Furthermore, resuscitation was qualitatively more difficult after OAC-CPR, with a longer time to ROSC (+70 s). No abdominal damage was observed over short periods of OAC-CPR.ConclusionsAlthough OAC-CPR appeared superior to CC-CPR by pressure and ventilation metrics, lower carotid flow and longer delay until ROSC raise concerns about overall performance. These paradoxical observations suggest that the evaluation of efficacious alternative CPR techniques may require more direct measurements of vital organ perfusion.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

30 keywords...

hide…