Proportional Versus Fixed Chest Compression Depth for Guideline-Compliant Resuscitation of Infant Asphyxial Cardiac Arrest.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital Emergency Care Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1080/10903127.2024.2414391
David D Salcido, Allison C Koller, Cornelia Genbrugge, Jorge A Gumucio, James J Menegazzi
{"title":"Proportional Versus Fixed Chest Compression Depth for Guideline-Compliant Resuscitation of Infant Asphyxial Cardiac Arrest.","authors":"David D Salcido, Allison C Koller, Cornelia Genbrugge, Jorge A Gumucio, James J Menegazzi","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2414391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Current guidelines for parameters of the delivery of chest compressions (CC) for infants and children are largely consensus based. Of the two recommended depth targets - 1.5 inches and 1/3 anterior-posterior chest diameter (APD) - it is unclear whether these have equal potential for injury. In previous experiments, our group showed in an animal model of pediatric asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA; modeling ∼ 7 year-old children) that 1/3 APD resulted in significantly deeper CC and a higher likelihood of life-threatening injury. We sought to examine and compare injury characteristics of CC delivered at 1.5 inches or 1/3 APD in an infant model of asphyxial OHCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Swine were sedated, anesthetized, paralyzed, intubated through direct laryngoscopy, and then mechanically ventilated (10ml/kg, FiO2:21%). APD was measured and confirmed by two investigators via a sliding T-square at the xiphoid. After instrumentation for vital signs monitoring, and while still anesthetized, the endotracheal tube was manually occluded to induce asphyxia, and occlusion was maintained for 9 minutes. Animals were then randomized to receive CC with a depth of 1.5 inches (Group 1) or 1/3 APD (Group 2), both with a rate of 100 per minute. Advanced life support drugs were administered at 13 minutes, and defibrillation at 14 minutes. Resuscitation continued until return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or 20 minutes of failed resuscitation. Survivors were sacrificed with KCl after 20 minutes of observation. Veterinary staff conducted necropsy to assay lung injury, rib fracture, hemothorax, airway bleeding, great vessel dissection, and heart/liver/spleen contusion. Injury characteristics were summarized and compared via Chi-Squared test or Mann-Whitney U-test using an alpha = 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 animals were included for analysis (Group 1: 18; Group 2: 18). Mean (SD) APD overall was 5.58 (0.23) inches, yielding a mean 1/3 APD depth of 1.86 inches. APD did not differ between groups. ROSC rates did not differ between groups. No injury characteristics differed significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In an swine model of infant asphyxial OHCA and resuscitation considering 1/3 APD or 1.5 inches, neither CC depth strategy was associated with increased injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2414391","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Current guidelines for parameters of the delivery of chest compressions (CC) for infants and children are largely consensus based. Of the two recommended depth targets - 1.5 inches and 1/3 anterior-posterior chest diameter (APD) - it is unclear whether these have equal potential for injury. In previous experiments, our group showed in an animal model of pediatric asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA; modeling ∼ 7 year-old children) that 1/3 APD resulted in significantly deeper CC and a higher likelihood of life-threatening injury. We sought to examine and compare injury characteristics of CC delivered at 1.5 inches or 1/3 APD in an infant model of asphyxial OHCA.

Methods: Swine were sedated, anesthetized, paralyzed, intubated through direct laryngoscopy, and then mechanically ventilated (10ml/kg, FiO2:21%). APD was measured and confirmed by two investigators via a sliding T-square at the xiphoid. After instrumentation for vital signs monitoring, and while still anesthetized, the endotracheal tube was manually occluded to induce asphyxia, and occlusion was maintained for 9 minutes. Animals were then randomized to receive CC with a depth of 1.5 inches (Group 1) or 1/3 APD (Group 2), both with a rate of 100 per minute. Advanced life support drugs were administered at 13 minutes, and defibrillation at 14 minutes. Resuscitation continued until return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or 20 minutes of failed resuscitation. Survivors were sacrificed with KCl after 20 minutes of observation. Veterinary staff conducted necropsy to assay lung injury, rib fracture, hemothorax, airway bleeding, great vessel dissection, and heart/liver/spleen contusion. Injury characteristics were summarized and compared via Chi-Squared test or Mann-Whitney U-test using an alpha = 0.05.

Results: A total of 36 animals were included for analysis (Group 1: 18; Group 2: 18). Mean (SD) APD overall was 5.58 (0.23) inches, yielding a mean 1/3 APD depth of 1.86 inches. APD did not differ between groups. ROSC rates did not differ between groups. No injury characteristics differed significantly between groups.

Conclusions: In an swine model of infant asphyxial OHCA and resuscitation considering 1/3 APD or 1.5 inches, neither CC depth strategy was associated with increased injury.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
符合指南的婴儿窒息性心脏骤停复苏按比例胸外按压深度与固定胸外按压深度。
目的:目前为婴儿和儿童提供的胸外按压 (CC) 参数指南主要基于共识。在推荐的两个深度目标(1.5 英寸和 1/3 胸前后直径 (APD))中,目前尚不清楚这两个目标是否具有同等的伤害可能性。在之前的实验中,我们的研究小组在小儿院外窒息性心脏骤停(OHCA;建模 ∼ 7 岁儿童)的动物模型中发现,1/3 APD 会导致 CC 明显加深,造成危及生命的损伤的可能性更高。我们试图在窒息性 OHCA 婴儿模型中研究和比较 1.5 英寸或 1/3 APD 下的 CC 损伤特征:方法:对猪进行镇静、麻醉、瘫痪、通过直接喉镜插管,然后进行机械通气(10 毫升/千克,FiO2:21%)。两名研究人员通过剑突部位的滑动 T 形尺测量并确认 APD。在使用仪器进行生命体征监测后,在仍处于麻醉状态的情况下,手动闭塞气管导管以诱导窒息,并保持闭塞 9 分钟。然后将动物随机分配到深度为 1.5 英寸的 CC(第 1 组)或 1/3 APD(第 2 组),速度均为每分钟 100 次。13 分钟时给予高级生命支持药物,14 分钟时进行除颤。复苏一直持续到自发性循环恢复(ROSC)或复苏失败 20 分钟。观察 20 分钟后,用氯化钾将幸存者处死。兽医人员进行尸体解剖,以检测肺损伤、肋骨骨折、血胸、气道出血、大血管离断和心/肝/脾挫伤。通过 Chi-Squared 检验或 Mann-Whitney U 检验(α = 0.05)对损伤特征进行总结和比较:共有 36 只动物被纳入分析(第 1 组:18 只;第 2 组:18 只)。总体 APD 平均值(标清)为 5.58 (0.23) 英寸,1/3 APD 平均深度为 1.86 英寸。各组的 APD 无差异。各组的 ROSC 率没有差异。各组间的损伤特征无明显差异:结论:在一个婴儿窒息 OHCA 和复苏考虑 1/3 APD 或 1.5 英寸的猪模型中,两种 CC 深度策略都不会增加损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Judgment Item Development for Emergency Medical Service Clinicians. 2024 Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care. Proportional Versus Fixed Chest Compression Depth for Guideline-Compliant Resuscitation of Infant Asphyxial Cardiac Arrest. The Route to ROSC: Evaluating the Impact of Route and Timing of Epinephrine Administration in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes. Evaluation of the Implementation of a Novel Fluid Resuscitation Device in the Prehospital Care of Sepsis Patients: Application of the Implementation Outcomes Framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1