• Michael P Otlewski, Leslie A Geddes, Michael Pargett, and Charles F Babbs.
• MED Institute, Inc., West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA. otlewski@medinst.com
• Cardiovasc Eng. 2009 Sep 1;9(3):98-103.

AbstractCoronary perfusion pressure (CPP) is a major indicator of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in human and animal research studies, however, methods for calculating CPP differ among research groups. Here we compare the 6 published methods for calculating CPP using the same data set of aortic (Ao) and right atrial (RA) blood pressures. CPP was computed using each of the 6 calculation methods in an anesthetized pig model, instrumented with catheters with Cobe pressure transducers. Aortic and right atrial pressures were recorded continuously during electrically induced ventricular fibrillation and standard AHA CPR. CPP calculated from the same raw data set by the 6 calculation methods ranged from -1 (signifying retrograde blood flow) to 26 mmHg (mean +/- SD of 15 +/- 11 mmHg). The CPP achieved by standard closed chest CPR is typically reported as 10-20 mmHg. Within a single study the CPP values may be comparable; however, the CPP values for different studies may not be a reliable indicator of the efficacy of a given CPR method. Electronically derived true mean coronary perfusion pressure is arguably the gold standard method for representing coronary perfusion pressure.

18 keywords...

hide…