• Resuscitation · Jul 1986

    Comparative Study

    The comparative pathology of open chest vs. mechanical closed chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs.

    • S F Badylak, K B Kern, W A Tacker, G A Ewy, W Janas, and A Carter.
    • Resuscitation. 1986 Jul 1;13(4):249-64.

    AbstractWe compared the pathologic changes following open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCCPR) vs. closed chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCCPR) in 28 healthy mongrel dogs subjected to experimentally induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). VF was induced in 29 dogs. No treatment was given for 3 min, then mechanical CCCPR was given for the next 12 min. External defibrillation (80 joules) was then attempted twice. One dog was resuscitated. The remaining 28 dogs were divided into 2 groups of 14 each. Group A received continued CCCPR and group B received OCCPR. All dogs received advanced cardiac life support and were followed until resuscitated or dead. All dogs were autopsied and gross pathology scores and histopathology scores were determined for each animal, and for each of 19 separate tissues within each animal. The mean gross pathology scores for the following tissues were significantly greater for dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR: skin (3.4 vs. 1.2; P less than 0.001), subcutaneous tissue (3.7 vs. 0.6; P less than 0.001), chest wall muscle (3.7 vs. 0.5; P less than 0.001), and pleura (1.9 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001). The mean total gross pathology score was also greater in dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR (17.2 vs. 7.7; P less than 0.001). The mean histopathology scores for the following tissues were significantly greater for dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR: skin (2.5 vs. 0.0; P less than 0.001), subcutaneous tissue (2.2 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001), muscle (2.3 vs. 0.1; P less than 0.001), pleura (1.6 vs. 0.0; P less than 0.001), pericardium (1.4 vs. 0.2; P less than 0.01), epicardium (2.5 vs. 0.2; P less than 0.001), myocardium (2.5 vs. 0.3; P less than 0.001), and endocardium (1.9 vs. 0.5; P less than 0.01). The mean total histopathology score was also greater in dogs that received OCCPR vs. those that received CCCPR (20.1 vs. 7.4; P less than 0.001). The histopathology score for brain tissue was greater for the CCCPR group than for the OCCPR group (1.9 vs. 0.4; P less than 0.05). This study showed that OCCPR in dogs following VF caused more severe pathologic changes than CCCPR. These changes were attributed to thoracotomy-induced chest wall injury and to internal defibrillation induced myocardial injury. However, OCCPR caused less severe microscopic brain lesions than CCCPR.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.