Kern K B, Carter A B, Showen R L, Voorhees W D, Babbs C F, Tacker W A, Ewy G A
Am J Emerg Med. 1987 May;5(3):190-5. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90318-4.
Three currently available mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were compared using a canine cardiac arrest model. Twenty-four-hour survival without neurologic deficit was the goal. A group of 30 large mongrel dogs was divided equally among Thumper CPR, simultaneous compression and ventilation (SCV) CPR, and vest CPR. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically, and after 3 minutes of no intervention, one of the three types of mechanical CPR was performed for 17 minutes. SCV CPR and vest CPR produced significantly greater aortic and right atrial systolic pressures than Thumper CPR (P less than .03). The SCV CPR technique also produced significantly higher aortic diastolic pressure and right atrial diastolic pressure than either of the other methods (P less than .03). However, coronary perfusion pressure was not different among the three mechanical methods. No differences in immediate resuscitation, 24-hour survival, or neurologic deficit scores at 24 hours were found. Neither SCV nor the vest techniques of CPR appear better for survival or neurologic outcome than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed with the Thumper.
使用犬类心脏骤停模型比较了三种目前可用的心肺复苏（CPR）机械设备。目标是实现无神经功能缺损的24小时存活。将一组30只大型杂种犬平均分为三组，分别接受胸外按压式心肺复苏（Thumper CPR）、同步按压与通气（SCV）心肺复苏和背心式心肺复苏。通过电刺激诱发心室颤动，在3分钟无干预后，进行17分钟的三种机械心肺复苏中的一种。与胸外按压式心肺复苏相比，SCV心肺复苏和背心式心肺复苏产生的主动脉和右心房收缩压显著更高（P＜0.03）。SCV心肺复苏技术产生的主动脉舒张压和右心房舒张压也显著高于其他两种方法（P＜0.03）。然而，三种机械方法的冠状动脉灌注压没有差异。在即时复苏、24小时存活或24小时神经功能缺损评分方面未发现差异。与使用胸外按压式心肺复苏进行的标准心肺复苏相比，SCV和背心式心肺复苏技术在存活或神经功能结局方面均未表现出更好的效果。
