Suppr超能文献

神经功能完整的心脏骤停猪模型存活:手动心肺复苏与 LifeBelt 心肺复苏。

Neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest: manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. LifeBelt cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, and the Air Medical Research Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Jul-Sep;14(3):324-8. doi: 10.3109/10903121003770662.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the LifeBelt (Deca-Medica, Inc., Columbus, OH), a novel cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device, with manual CPR on the outcome of neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest.

METHODS

Twenty-two adolescent swine were randomized by permuted block design to resuscitation using LifeBelt (n = 12) or manual CPR (n = 10). The animals were instrumented with right atrial and aortic pressure catheters while they were under general anesthesia with isoflurane and nitrous oxide. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced with a bipolar pacing catheter placed in the right ventricle. After 7 minutes of untreated VF, chest compressions with either LifeBelt or manual CPR were initiated along with standard Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Survivors were assigned a neurologic score using the neurologic deficit score and the cerebral performance category (CPC) score at 24, 48, and 72 hours following resuscitation by a veterinarian blinded to treatment allocation.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in prearrest hemodynamic parameters or in important resuscitation variables between the groups. One of 12 of the LifeBelt animals failed to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.002-0.38). The remaining 11 had a neurologic deficit score of 0 and a CPC score of 1, indicating normal neurologic function. All of the manual CPR animals survived. One of 10 manual CPR survivors (0.10, 95% CI 0.003-0.45) had a neurologic deficit score of 260 and a CPC score of 3, indicating moderate disability, while the remaining animals had a neurologic deficit score of 0 and a CPC score of 1.

CONCLUSIONS

In this porcine model of cardiac arrest, we did not detect significant differences in neurologically intact survival between LifeBelt CPR and manual CPR.

摘要

目的

比较 LifeBelt(Deca-Medica,Inc.,俄亥俄州哥伦布),一种新型心肺复苏(CPR)设备,与手动 CPR 对心脏骤停猪模型中神经完整存活的结果。

方法

通过随机区组设计,将 22 只青春期猪随机分为使用 LifeBelt(n = 12)或手动 CPR(n = 10)复苏的两组。动物在全身麻醉下接受异氟烷和氧化亚氮麻醉,并使用右心房和主动脉压力导管进行仪器操作。使用放置在右心室的双极起搏导管诱导心室颤动(VF)。在未经治疗的 VF 持续 7 分钟后,使用 LifeBelt 或手动 CPR 开始进行胸部按压,并同时进行标准的高级心脏生命支持。由一名对治疗分配不知情的兽医在复苏后 24、48 和 72 小时使用神经缺损评分和脑功能分类(CPC)评分对幸存者进行神经功能评分。

结果

两组之间的术前血流动力学参数或重要复苏变量均无显著差异。12 只 LifeBelt 动物中有 1 只未能恢复自主循环(0.08,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.002-0.38)。其余 11 只动物的神经缺损评分为 0,CPC 评分为 1,表明神经功能正常。所有手动 CPR 动物均存活。10 只手动 CPR 幸存者中有 1 只(0.10,95%CI 0.003-0.45)的神经缺损评分为 260,CPC 评分为 3,表明存在中度残疾,而其余动物的神经缺损评分为 0,CPC 评分为 1。

结论

在本心脏骤停猪模型中,我们未发现 LifeBelt CPR 与手动 CPR 在神经完整存活方面存在显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验