首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >Neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest: manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. LifeBelt cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
【24h】

Neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest: manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. LifeBelt cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

机译:猪在心脏骤停模型中的神经学上完整的生存:手动心肺复苏与LifeBelt心肺复苏。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare the LifeBelt (Deca-Medica, Inc., Columbus, OH), a novel cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device, with manual CPR on the outcome of neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. METHODS: Twenty-two adolescent swine were randomized by permuted block design to resuscitation using LifeBelt (n = 12) or manual CPR (n = 10). The animals were instrumented with right atrial and aortic pressure catheters while they were under general anesthesia with isoflurane and nitrous oxide. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced with a bipolar pacing catheter placed in the right ventricle. After 7 minutes of untreated VF, chest compressions with either LifeBelt or manual CPR were initiated along with standard Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Survivors were assigned a neurologic score using the neurologic deficit score and the cerebral performance category (CPC) score at 24, 48, and 72 hours following resuscitation by a veterinarian blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in prearrest hemodynamic parameters or in important resuscitation variables between the groups. One of 12 of the LifeBelt animals failed to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.002-0.38). The remaining 11 had a neurologic deficit score of 0 and a CPC score of 1, indicating normal neurologic function. All of the manual CPR animals survived. One of 10 manual CPR survivors (0.10, 95% CI 0.003-0.45) had a neurologic deficit score of 260 and a CPC score of 3, indicating moderate disability, while the remaining animals had a neurologic deficit score of 0 and a CPC score of 1. CONCLUSIONS: In this porcine model of cardiac arrest, we did not detect significant differences in neurologically intact survival between LifeBelt CPR and manual CPR.
机译:目的:比较新型心肺复苏(CPR)设备LifeBelt(Deca-Medica,Inc.,俄亥俄州哥伦布)与手动CPR对心脏骤停猪模型中神经学上完整生存的结果进行比较。方法:将22只青春期猪随机排列,采用LifeBelt(n = 12)或人工CPR(n = 10)进行置换术进行复苏。在异氟烷和一氧化二氮全麻下对动物进行右心房和主动脉压力导管检测。用置于右心室的双极起搏导管诱发心室纤颤(VF)。未经治疗的VF 7分钟后,开始使用LifeBelt或手动CPR进行胸部按压以及标准的Advanced Cardiac Life Support。在不进行治疗分配的情况下,对兽医进行复苏后的24、48和72小时,使用神经功能缺损评分和脑功能类别(CPC)评分为幸存者分配神经功能评分。结果:两组之间的前期血流动力学参数或重要的复苏变量均无显着差异。 LifeBelt动物中的12只动物之一未能实现自发循环的恢复(0.08,95%置信区间[CI] 0.002-0.38)。其余11位神经功能缺损评分为0,CPC评分为1,表明神经功能正常。所有的手动CPR动物均存活。 10名人工CPR幸存者中的一名(0.10,95%CI 0.003-0.45)的神经功能缺损评分为260,CPC评分为3,表明中度残疾,而其余动物的神经功能缺损评分为0,CPC评分为0。 1.结论:在这种心脏骤停的猪模型中,我们没有发现LifeBelt CPR和手动CPR在神经学上完整的存活率上存在显着差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号