Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 22;9(11):1601.
doi: 10.3390/children9111601.

A Randomized, Controlled Animal Study: 21% or 100% Oxygen during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Asphyxiated Infant Piglets

Affiliations

A Randomized, Controlled Animal Study: 21% or 100% Oxygen during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Asphyxiated Infant Piglets

Solomon Nyame et al. Children (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: During pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), resuscitation guidelines recommend 100% oxygen (O2); however, the most effective O2 concentration for infants unknown. Aim: We aimed to determine if 21% O2 during CPR with either chest compression (CC) during sustained inflation (SI) (CC + SI) or continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) will reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to 100% O2 in infant piglets with asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest. Methods: Piglets (20−23 days of age, weighing 6.2−10.2 kg) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to asphyxia. Cardiac arrest was defined as mean arterial blood pressure < 25 mmHg with bradycardia. After cardiac arrest, piglets were randomized to CC + SI or CCaV with either 21% or 100% O2 or the sham. Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded. Main results: Baseline parameters, duration, and degree of asphyxiation were not different. Median (interquartile range) time to ROSC was 107 (90−440) and 140 (105−200) s with CC + SI 21% and 100% O2, and 600 (50−600) and 600 (95−600) s with CCaV 21% and 100% O2 (p = 0.27). Overall, six (86%) and six (86%) piglets with CC + SI 21% and 100% O2, and three (43%) and three (43%) piglets achieved ROSC with CCaV 21% and 100% O2 (p = 0.13). Conclusions: In infant piglets resuscitated with CC + SI, time to ROSC reduced and survival improved compared to CCaV. The use of 21% O2 had similar time to ROSC, short-term survival, and hemodynamic recovery compared to 100% oxygen. Clinical studies comparing 21% with 100% O2 during infant CPR are warranted.

Keywords: asphyxia; chest compressions; infants; oxygen; resuscitation; sustained inflation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Changes in heart rate (A), mean arterial blood pressure (B), carotid blood flow (C), and cerebral oxygenation (D) with 21% and 100% O2 during continuous chest compression during sustained inflation (CC + SI), continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV). * Significantly different from all intervention groups, # significantly different from sham-operated group at the same time point.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wyckoff M.H., Singletary E.M., Soar J., Olasveengen T.M., Greif R., Liley H.G., Zideman D., Bhanji F., Andersen L.W., Avis S.R., et al. 2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations: Summary from the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group. Circulation. 2021;145:e645–e721. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aziz K., Lee C.H.C., Escobedo M.B., Hoover A.V., Kamath-Rayne B.D., Kapadia V.S., Magid D.J., Niermeyer S., Schmölzer G.M., Szyld E., et al. Part 5: Neonatal Resuscitation 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Pediatrics. 2021;147((Suppl. S1)):e2020038505E. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-038505E. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Topjian A.A., Raymond T.T., Atkins D., Chan M., Duff J.P., Joyner B.L., Jr., Lasa J.J., Lavonas E.J., Levy A., Mahgoub M., et al. Part 4: Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020;142((Suppl. S2)):S469–S523. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000901. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wyckoff M.H., Wyllie J.P., Aziz K., de Almeida M.F., Fabres J.W., Fawke J., Guinsburg R., Hosono S., Isayama T., Kapadia V.S., et al. Neonatal Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142((Suppl. S1)):329–337. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000895. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aziz K., Lee H.C., Escobedo M.B., Hoover A.V., Kamath-Rayne B.D., Kapadia V.S., Magid D.J., Niermeyer S., Schmölzer G.M., Szyld E.G., et al. Part 5: Neonatal Resuscitation: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020;142((Suppl. S2)):S524–S550. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000902. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources