Institute for Experimental Medical Research and Centre for Heart Failure Research, Oslo University Hospital - Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Resuscitation. 2010 Apr;81(4):488-92. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.028. Epub 2010 Feb 1.
Piston based mechanical chest compression devices deliver compressions and decompressions in an accelerated pattern, resulting in superior haemodynamics compared to manual compression in animal studies. The present animal study compares haemodynamics during two different hybrid compression patterns to a standard compression pattern resembling that of modern mechanical chest compression devices.
In 12 anaesthetized domestic pigs in ventricular fibrillation, coronary perfusion pressures (CPP) and cerebral cortical blood flow (CCBF) was measured, and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed. Two hybrid compression patterns, one with accelerated trapezoid compression and slower sinusoid decompression (TrS), and one with slower sinusoid compression and accelerated trapezoid decompression (STr), were tested against a standard accelerated trapezoid compression-decompression pattern (TrTr) in a cross-over randomised setup.
There were 7% (1, 14, p=0.046) lower CCBF and 3 mmHg (1, 5, p=0.017) lower CPP with the TrS compared to TrTr pattern. No significant difference between STr and TrTr pattern in either CCBF, 6% (-3, 15, p=0.176) or CPP, 0 mmHg (-2, 3, p=0.703) was present. Our TEE recordings were insufficient for haemodynamic comparison between the different compression-decompression patterns. Despite standardized sternal piston position and placement of the pigs, TEE revealed varying degree of asymmetrical heart chamber compression in the animals.
Both cardiac and cerebral perfusion benefited from accelerated decompression, while accelerated compression did not improve haemodynamics. The evolution of mechanical CPR is dependent on further research on mechanisms generating forward blood flow during external chest compressions.
基于活塞的机械胸部按压设备以加速模式进行按压和减压,与动物研究中的手动按压相比,可产生更好的血液动力学效果。本动物研究比较了两种不同的混合压缩模式与类似于现代机械胸部按压设备的标准压缩模式之间的血液动力学。
在 12 只麻醉的心室颤动家猪中,测量冠状动脉灌注压(CPP)和脑皮质血流(CCBF),并进行经食管超声心动图(TEE)检查。在交叉随机设置中,对两种混合压缩模式(一种具有加速的梯形压缩和较慢的正弦波减压(TrS),另一种具有较慢的正弦波压缩和加速的梯形减压(STr))进行测试,与标准的加速梯形压缩-减压模式(TrTr)进行比较。
与 TrTr 模式相比,TrS 模式下 CCBF 降低 7%(1,14,p=0.046),CPP 降低 3mmHg(1,5,p=0.017)。STr 与 TrTr 模式之间在 CCBF 方面没有显著差异,为 6%(-3,15,p=0.176),CPP 方面也没有显著差异,为 0mmHg(-2,3,p=0.703)。我们的 TEE 记录不足以进行不同压缩-减压模式之间的血液动力学比较。尽管胸骨活塞位置和猪的放置标准化,但 TEE 显示动物的心脏腔室压缩存在不同程度的不对称。
加速减压有利于心脏和大脑灌注,而加速压缩并不能改善血液动力学。机械心肺复苏的发展取决于对外科胸部按压过程中产生前向血流的机制的进一步研究。