There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
This translational research initiative focused on the physiology of cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) initiated by a clinical observation of consistent hyperventilation
by professional rescuers in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This observation generated
scientific hypotheses that could only ethically be tested in the animal laboratory.
To examine the hypothesis that excessive ventilation rates during performance of CPR
by overzealous but well-trained rescue personnel causes a significant decrease in
coronary perfusion pressure and an increased likelihood of death.
In the in vivo human aspect of the study, we set out to objectively and electronically
record rate and duration of ventilation during performance of CPR by trained professional
rescue personnel in a prospective clinical trial in intubated, adult patients with
out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In the in vivo animal aspect of the study, to simulate
the clinically observed hyperventilation, nine pigs in cardiac arrest were ventilated
in a random order with 12, 20, or 30 breaths/min, and physiologic variables were assessed.
Next, three groups of seven pigs in cardiac arrest were ventilated at 12 breaths/min
with 100% oxygen, 30 breaths/min with 100% oxygen, or 30 breaths/min with 5% CO2/95%
oxygen, and survival was assessed.
Ventilation rate and duration in humans; mean intratracheal pressure, coronary perfusion
pressure, and survival rates in animals.
In 13 consecutive adults (average age, 63 +/- 5.8 yrs) receiving CPR (seven men) the
average ventilation rate was 30 +/- 3.2 breaths/min (range, 15 to 49 breaths/min)
and the average duration of each breath was 1.0 +/- 0.07 sec. The average percentage
of time in which a positive pressure was recorded in the lungs was 47.3 +/- 4.3%.
No patient survived. In animals treated with 12, 20, and 30 breaths/min, the mean
intratracheal pressures and coronary perfusion pressures were 7.1 +/- 0.7, 11.6 +/-
0.7, 17.5 +/- 1.0 mm Hg/min (p < .0001) and 23.4 +/- 1.0, 19.5 +/- 1.8, 16.9 +/- 1.8
mm Hg (p = .03) with each of the different ventilation rates, respectively (p = comparison
of 12 breaths/min vs. 30 breaths/min for mean intratracheal pressure and coronary
perfusion pressure). Survival rates were six of seven, one of seven, and one of seven
with 12, 30, and 30 + CO2 breaths/min, respectively (p = .006).
Despite seemingly adequate training, professional rescuers consistently hyperventilated
patients during out-of-hospital CPR. Subsequent hemodynamic and survival studies in
pigs demonstrated that excessive ventilation rates significantly decreased coronary
perfusion pressures and survival rates, despite supplemental CO2 to prevent hypocapnia.
This translational research initiative demonstrates an inversely proportional relationship
between mean intratracheal pressure and coronary perfusion pressure during CPR. Additional
education of CPR providers is urgently needed to reduce these newly identified and
deadly consequences of hyperventilation during CPR. These findings also have significant
implications for interpretation and design of resuscitation research, CPR guidelines,
education, the development of biomedical devices, emergency medical services quality
assurance, and clinical practice.
A clinical observational study revealed that rescuers consistently hyperventilated patients during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this study was to quantify the degree of excessive ventilation in humans and determine if comparable excessive ventilation rates during CPR in animals significantly decrease coronary perfusion pressure and survival. In humans, ventilation rate and duration during CPR was electronically recorded by professional rescuers. In 13 consecutive adults (average age, 63+/-5.8 years) receiving CPR (7 men), average ventilation rate was 30+/-3.2 per minute (range, 15 to 49). Average duration per breath was 1.0+/-0.07 per second. No patient survived. Hemodynamics were studied in 9 pigs in cardiac arrest ventilated in random order with 12, 20, or 30 breaths per minute. Survival rates were then studied in 3 groups of 7 pigs in cardiac arrest that were ventilated at 12 breaths per minute (100% O2), 30 breaths per minute (100% O2), or 30 breaths per minute (5% CO2/95% O2). In animals treated with 12, 20, and 30 breaths per minute, the mean intrathoracic pressure (mm Hg/min) and coronary perfusion pressure (mm Hg) were 7.1+/-0.7, 11.6+/-0.7, 17.5+/-1.0 (P<0.0001), and 23.4+/-1.0, 19.5+/-1.8, and 16.9+/-1.8 (P=0.03), respectively. Survival rates were 6/7, 1/7, and 1/7 with 12, 30, and 30+ CO2 breaths per minute, respectively (P=0.006). Professional rescuers were observed to excessively ventilate patients during out-of-hospital CPR. Subsequent animal studies demonstrated that similar excessive ventilation rates resulted in significantly increased intrathoracic pressure and markedly decreased coronary perfusion pressures and survival rates.
Despite improving arterial oxygen saturation and pH, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with chest compressions plus rescue breathing (CC+RB) has not improved survival from ventricular fibrillation (VF) compared with chest compressions alone (CC) in numerous animal models and 2 clinical investigations. After 3 minutes of untreated VF, 14 swine (32+/-1 kg) were randomly assigned to receive CC+RB or CC for 12 minutes, followed by advanced cardiac life support. All 14 animals survived 24 hours, 13 with good neurological outcome. For the CC+RB group, the aortic relaxation pressures routinely decreased during the 2 rescue breaths. Therefore, the mean coronary perfusion pressure of the first 2 compressions in each compression cycle was lower than those of the final 2 compressions (14+/-1 versus 21+/-2 mm Hg, P<0.001). During each minute of CPR, the number of chest compressions was also lower in the CC+RB group (62+/-1 versus 92+/-1 compressions, P<0.001). Consequently, the integrated coronary perfusion pressure was lower with CC+RB during each minute of CPR (P<0.05 for the first 8 minutes). Moreover, at 2 to 5 minutes of CPR, the median left ventricular blood flow by fluorescent microsphere technique was 60 mL. 100 g(-1). min(-1) with CC+RB versus 96 mL. 100 g(-1). min(-1) with CC, P<0.05. Because the arterial oxygen saturation was higher with CC+RB, the left ventricular myocardial oxygen delivery did not differ. Interrupting chest compressions for rescue breathing can adversely affect hemodynamics during CPR for VF.
Despite extensive training of citizens of Seattle in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), bystanders do not perform CPR in almost half of witnessed cardiac arrests. Instructions in chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation given by dispatchers over the telephone can require 2.4 minutes. In experimental studies, chest compression alone is associated with survival rates similar to those with chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. We conducted a randomized study to compare CPR by chest compression alone with CPR by chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The setting of the trial was an urban, fire-department-based, emergency-medical-care system with central dispatching. In a randomized manner, telephone dispatchers gave bystanders at the scene of apparent cardiac arrest instructions in either chest compression alone or chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed for 241 patients randomly assigned to receive chest compression alone and 279 assigned to chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Complete instructions were delivered in 62 percent of episodes for the group receiving chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation and 81 percent of episodes for the group receiving chest compression alone (P=0.005). Instructions for compression required 1.4 minutes less to complete than instructions for compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Survival to hospital discharge was better among patients assigned to chest compression alone than among those assigned to chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation (14.6 percent vs. 10.4 percent), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.18). The outcome after CPR with chest compression alone is similar to that after chest compression with mouth-to-mouth ventilation, and chest compression alone may be the preferred approach for bystanders inexperienced in CPR.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.