• Xiu-man Li, Li-xiang Wang, Ya-hua Liu, Kun Sun, Li-zhi Ma, Xiao-dong Guo, and Hui-qing Li.
• Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Anaesthesiology, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou 221004, Jiangsu, China.
• Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2012 Apr 1;24(4):237-40.

ObjectiveTo compare the hemodynamic and respiratory influences of chest compression- cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CC-CPR) and rhythmic abdominal lifting and compression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ALC-CPR) in a swine model of asphyxia cardiac arrest (CA), and evaluate the effectiveness of rhythmic abdominal lifting and compression.MethodsThirty swines were randomly divided into two groups, with 15 swines in each group. CA model was reproduced by asphyxia as a result of clamping the trachea, and CC-CPR and ALC-CPR was conducted in two groups, respectively. Electrocardiogram (ECG), pulse oxygen saturation [SpO(2)], end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide [P(ET)CO(2)], aorta systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), central venous pressure (CVP), and tidal volume (VT) were monitored continuously from 10 minutes before asphyxia to the end of experiment. The aorta mean arterial pressure (MAP), coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) and minute ventilation (MV) were calculated. Artery blood samples were collected to determine the blood gas analysis at 10 minutes before asphyxia, 10 minutes after asphyxia, and 5, 10, 20 minutes after resuscitation. The restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, 24-hour survival rate and 24-hour neurological function score were observed.ResultsThere were no significant differences in all mentioned indexes between two groups at 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after asphyxia. At 2 minutes after the resuscitation, the MAP (mm Hg, 1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) and CPP (mm Hg) in CC-CPR group were significantly higher than those in ALC-CPR group (MAP: 43.60 ± 12.91 vs. 33.40 ± 6.59, P < 0.05; CPP: 21.67 ± 11.28 vs. 11.80 ± 4.16, P < 0.01), the VT (ml) and MV (L/min)in ALC-CPR group were significantly higher than those in CC-CPR group (VT: 111.67 ± 18.12 vs. 56.60 ± 7.76; MV: 11.17 ± 1.81 vs. 5.54 ± 0.79, both P < 0.01). At 5, 10, 20 minutes after resuscitation, in ALC-CPR group, pH value, arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO(2), mm Hg] and arterial oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] were increased, and HCO(3)(-) (mmol/L) and base excess (BE, mmol/L) were decreased, which significantly higher than those in CC-CPR group [pH at 20 minutes after resuscitation: 7.16 ± 0.16 vs. 7.01 ± 0.14; PaO(2): 82.73 ± 13.20 vs. 58.33 ± 17.77; HCO(3)(-): 27.71 ± 3.11 vs. 21.04 ± 3.62; BE: -4.78 ± 4.30 vs. -10.23 ± 2.12; SaO(2): 0.893 ± 0.088 vs. 0.764 ± 0.122], and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO(2), mm Hg], K(+) (mmol/L) and lactic acid (Lac,mmol/L) were significantly lower than those in CC-CPR group [PaCO(2) at 20 minutes after resuscitation: 49.40 ± 15.60 vs. 79.80 ± 15.35; K(+): 7.18 ± 1.76 vs. 8.55 ± 1.02; Lac: 8.17 ± 1.46 vs. 10.39 ± 1.92], with statistical significant (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). But the ROSC rate and 24-hour survival rate in ALC-CPR group were significantly higher than those in CC-CPR group (ROSC rate: 80.0% vs. 26.7%, P < 0.01; 24-hour survival rate: 60.0% vs. 13.3%, P < 0.05), and the 24-hour neurological function score was significantly lower than that in CC-CPR group (1.11 ± 0.33 vs. 3.50 ± 0.70, P < 0.01).ConclusionIn the incipient stage of cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the swine CA model of asphyxia, compared with CC-CPR, ALC-CPR can be more effective.

13 keywords...

hide…