| 1. |
- Tisherman, S A, et al.
(författare)
-
Future directions for resuscitation research. V. Ultra-advanced life support.
- 1997
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 34:3, s. 281-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Standard external cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SECPR) frequently produces very low perfusion pressures, which are inadequate to achieve restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and intact survival, particularly when the heart is diseased. Ultra-advanced life support (UALS) techniques may allow support of vital organ systems until either the heart recovers or cardiac repair or replacement is performed. Closed-chest emergency cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) provides control of blood flow, pressure, composition and temperature, but has so far been applied relatively late. This additional low-flow time may preclude conscious survival. An easy, quick method for vessel access and a small preprimed system that could be taken into the field are needed. Open-chest CPR (OCCPR) is physiologically superior to SECPR, but has also been initiated too late in prior studies. Its application in the field has recently proven feasible. Variations of OCCPR, which deserve clinical trials inside and outside hospitals, include 'minimally invasive direct cardiac massage' (MIDCM), using a pocket-size plunger-like device inserted via a small incision and 'direct mechanical ventricular actuation' (DMVA), using a machine that pneumatically drives a cup placed around the heart. Other novel UALS approaches for further research include the use of an aortic balloon catheter to improve coronary and cerebral blood flow during SECPR, aortic flush techniques and a double-balloon aortic catheter that could allow separate perfusion (and cooling) of the heart, brain and viscera for optimal resuscitation of each. Decision-making, initiation of UALS methods and diagnostic evaluations must be rapid to maximize the potential for ROSC and facilitate decision-making regarding long-term circulatory support versus withdrawal of life support for hopeless cases. Research and development of UALS techniques needs to be coordinated with cerebral resuscitation research.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood flow and perfusion pressure during open-chest versus closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pigs.
- 1995
-
Ingår i: Critical Care Medicine. - 0090-3493 .- 1530-0293. ; 23:4, s. 715-25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the blood flow and perfusion pressure differences observed during open- vs. closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), including the effects of epinephrine and sodium bicarbonate administration.DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.SETTING: Experimental animal laboratory in a university hospital.SUBJECTS: A total of 35 anesthetized piglets.INTERVENTIONS: After tracheostomy and insertion of arterial, right atrial, and pulmonary arterial catheters, thoracotomy was performed with placement of a pulmonary arterial flow probe and left atrial catheter. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and followed by 15 mins of either open-chest (n = 14) or closed-chest (n = 21) CPR. A 4-min infusion of 50 mmol of sodium bicarbonate or saline was added at the start of CPR. After 8 mins of CPR, 0.5 mg of epinephrine was given intravenously, and after 15 mins, direct current (DC) shocks were used to revert the heart to sinus rhythm.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood flow was studied using transit-time ultrasound flowmetry. In an extended group, intrathoracic pressure was measured for calculation of transmural pressure. Before epinephrine administration, mean pulmonary arterial flow (cardiac output) was reduced: a) during closed-chest CPR relatively more than pulmonary perfusion pressure but in proportion to systemic perfusion pressure; b) during open-chest CPR relatively less than pulmonary perfusion pressure but still in proportion to systemic perfusion pressure. Epinephrine administration temporarily increased systemic perfusion pressure during both closed- and open-chest CPR but temporarily decreased pulmonary perfusion pressure only during closed-chest CPR. After epinephrine administration, cardiac output temporarily decreased during both closed-and open-chest CPR.CONCLUSIONS: Open-chest CPR resulted in better cardiac output and systemic perfusion pressure than closed-chest CPR. However, cardiac output values obtained with both methods were much lower than previously reported. After epinephrine administration, cardiac output became extremely low with both methods.
|
|
