Newton J R, Glower D D, Wolfe J A, Tyson G S, Spratt J A, Fenely M P, Rankin J S, Olsen C O
Department of Surgery and Physiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988 May;95(5):892-901.
On the basis of recent investigation, controversy has arisen regarding which of several cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods optimizes hemodynamics. The present study was designed to compare five recently described chest compression techniques: high-impulse manual chest compression at 150/min, mechanical compression at 60/min with simultaneous ventilation, mechanical compression at 60/min with simultaneous ventilation and either systolic or diastolic abdominal compression, and pneumatic vest compression at 60/min. Eight dogs were chronically instrumented with electromagnetic flow probes in the ascending and descending aorta while matched micromanometers measured aortic, left ventricular, and pleural pressures. At study, each dog was anesthetized with morphine, intubated, and the heart was fibrillated by rapid ventricular pacing. The five cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods were performed randomly in each preparation within 7 to 10 minutes of arrest. In four dogs, brachiocephalic blood flow was computed as total cardiac output minus descending aortic blood flow, and in all dogs coronary perfusion pressure was calculated as mean diastolic aortic pressure minus mean diastolic left ventricular pressure. Average cardiac output for seven studies was 662 +/- 61 ml/min with high-impulse manual compression, 340 +/- 46 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation, 336 +/- 45 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with systolic abdominal compression, 366 +/- 52 ml/min with mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with diastolic abdominal compression, and 196 +/- 29 ml/min with vest resuscitation (high-impulse manual compression significantly greater than other techniques by multivariate analysis, p less than 0.05). Brachiocephalic blood flow generally followed cardiac output and was statistically the greatest with high-impulse manual compression at 273 +/- 47 ml/min (p less than 0.05). Finally, high-impulse manual compression provided the highest coronary perfusion pressure of 31 +/- 4 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) compared to 23 +/- 2 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation, 23 +/- 2 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with systolic abdominal compression, 23 +/- 3 mm Hg for mechanical compression and simultaneous ventilation with diastolic abdominal compression, and 11 +/- 2 mm Hg for vest resuscitation. These data demonstrate that high-impulse manual compression generated physiologically and statistically superior hemodynamics when compared with other methods in this model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
基于最近的研究,对于几种心肺复苏方法中哪种能优化血流动力学产生了争议。本研究旨在比较最近描述的五种胸外按压技术:每分钟150次的高冲击手动胸外按压、每分钟60次机械按压并同时通气、每分钟60次机械按压并同时通气以及收缩期或舒张期腹部按压、每分钟60次的气动背心按压。八只狗长期在升主动脉和降主动脉植入电磁血流探头,同时用匹配的微压计测量主动脉、左心室和胸膜压力。在研究时,每只狗用吗啡麻醉、插管,通过快速心室起搏使心脏发生纤颤。在心脏停搏7至10分钟内,对每种准备状态随机进行五种心肺复苏方法。在四只狗中,计算头臂血流为总心输出量减去降主动脉血流,在所有狗中计算冠状动脉灌注压为平均舒张期主动脉压减去平均舒张期左心室压。七项研究中,高冲击手动按压的平均心输出量为662±61毫升/分钟,机械按压并同时通气为340±46毫升/分钟,机械按压并同时通气及收缩期腹部按压为336±45毫升/分钟,机械按压并同时通气及舒张期腹部按压为366±52毫升/分钟,背心复苏为196±29毫升/分钟(多变量分析显示高冲击手动按压显著高于其他技术,p<0.05)。头臂血流一般随心输出量变化,高冲击手动按压时头臂血流在统计学上最大,为273±47毫升/分钟(p<0.05)。最后,高冲击手动按压提供的冠状动脉灌注压最高,为31±4毫米汞柱(p<0.05),相比之下,机械按压并同时通气为23±2毫米汞柱,机械按压并同时通气及收缩期腹部按压为23±2毫米汞柱,机械按压并同时通气及舒张期腹部按压为23±3毫米汞柱,背心复苏为11±2毫米汞柱。这些数据表明,在这种心肺复苏模型中,与其他方法相比,高冲击手动按压产生的血流动力学在生理和统计学上更优。