Twenty-four hour survival in a canine model of cardiac arrest comparing three methods of manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Abstract

Two new modifications of manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation, high impulse compression at a rate of 120/min and interposed abdominal compression at a rate of 60/min, have been reported to produce better hemodynamic responses than standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation at 60/min. However, the effect of these two new methods on initial resuscitation success and 24 hour survival is unknown. In this study, 30 mongrel dogs were divided into three equal groups, each treated with one of three types of manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ventricular fibrillation was induced electrically in morphinized, endotracheally intubated dogs emerging from halothane anesthesia. After 3 minutes of circulatory arrest without intervention, one of the three techniques of manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation was begun, and continued for 17 minutes. Defibrillation was performed at 20 minutes. Successful resuscitation was defined as a mean arterial blood pressure of at least 60 mm Hg, without chest compressions, 10 minutes after the initial defibrillation attempt. Intensive care was provided for 2 hours, including hemodynamic and respiratory monitoring, and drug intervention when required. Twenty-four hour survival and neurologic deficit were used as critical measures of outcome. Ten of 30 animals survived 24 hours with a mean neurologic deficit score of 5% (normal = 0, brain dead = 100). There was no difference in initial resuscitation success, 24 hour survival or neurologic deficit of the survivors among the three manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods. Aortic diastolic and calculated coronary perfusion pressures were similar for all three methods. Well performed standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is as effective as these modified versions (high impulse compression and interposed abdominal compression) when compared in the same animal model.