Pediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Maternal and Child Public Health Department, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 18;14(7):e0219660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219660. eCollection 2019.
There are no studies comparing synchronized and non-synchronized ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation (BVMV) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in pediatric patients. The main aim is to compare between synchronized and non-synchronized BVMV with chest compressions (CC), and between guided and non-guided CC with a real-time feedback-device in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest (CA). The secondary aim is to analyze the quality of CC during resuscitation.
60 piglets were randomized for CPR into four groups: Group A: guided-CC and synchronized ventilation; Group B: guided-CC and non-synchronized ventilation; Group C: non-guided CC and synchronized ventilation; Group D: non-guided CC and non-synchronized ventilation. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and quality of CC were compared between all groups.
60 piglets were included. Twenty-six (46.5%) achieved ROSC: A (46.7%), B (66.7%), C (26.7%) and D (33.3%). Survival rates were higher in group B than in groups A+C+D (66.7% vs 35.6%, p = 0.035). ROSC was higher with guided-CC (A+B 56.7% vs C+D 30%, p = 0.037). Piglets receiving non-synchronized ventilation did not show different rates of ROSC than synchronized ventilation (B+D 50% vs A+C 36.7%, p = 0.297). Non-synchronized groups showed lower arterial pCO2 after 3 minutes of CPR than synchronized groups: 57 vs 71 mmHg, p = 0.019. No differences were found in arterial pH and pO2, mean arterial pressure (MAP) or cerebral blood flow between groups. Chest compressions were shallower in surviving than in non-surviving piglets (4.7 vs 5.1 cm, p = 0.047). There was a negative correlation between time without CC and MAP (r = -0.35, p = 0.038).
The group receiving non-synchronized ventilation and guided-CC obtained significantly higher ROSC rates than the other modalities of resuscitation. Guided-CC achieved higher ROSC rates than non-guided CC. Non-synchronized ventilation was associated with better ventilation parameters, with no differences in hemodynamics or cerebral flow.
在儿科患者心肺复苏期间,尚无比较同步通气与球囊面罩通气(BVMV)和非同步通气的研究。本研究的主要目的是比较同步通气和非同步通气与胸外按压(CC)的效果,以及在窒息性心脏骤停(CA)的儿科动物模型中使用实时反馈设备指导和非指导 CC 的效果。次要目的是分析复苏期间 CC 的质量。
60 头小猪随机分为四组接受 CPR:A 组:指导 CC 和同步通气;B 组:指导 CC 和非同步通气;C 组:非指导 CC 和同步通气;D 组:非指导 CC 和非同步通气。比较所有组之间的自主循环恢复(ROSC)、血流动力学和呼吸参数以及 CC 质量。
纳入 60 头小猪。26 头(46.5%)小猪实现 ROSC:A 组(46.7%)、B 组(66.7%)、C 组(26.7%)和 D 组(33.3%)。B 组的存活率高于 A+C+D 组(66.7% vs 35.6%,p = 0.035)。指导 CC 组的 ROSC 更高(A+B 56.7% vs C+D 30%,p = 0.037)。非同步通气组的 ROSC 率与同步通气组无差异(B+D 50% vs A+C 36.7%,p = 0.297)。与同步通气组相比,非同步通气组在 CPR 3 分钟后动脉 pCO2 更低:57 比 71mmHg,p = 0.019。各组之间动脉 pH、pO2、平均动脉压(MAP)或脑血流无差异。存活小猪的 CC 深度比非存活小猪浅(4.7 比 5.1cm,p = 0.047)。无 CC 时间与 MAP 呈负相关(r = -0.35,p = 0.038)。
接受非同步通气和指导 CC 的组获得的 ROSC 率明显高于其他复苏方式。指导 CC 的 ROSC 率高于非指导 CC。非同步通气与更好的通气参数相关,血流动力学或脑血流无差异。