Duration of cardiac arrest requires different ventilation volumes during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pig model

Continuous compression with asynchronous ventilation improves CPR prognosis? A meta-analysis from human and animal studies

BACKGROUND

The cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compression to ventilation strategy remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between continuous chest compressions CPR with asynchronous ventilation (CCC-CPR) and interrupted chest compressions CPR with synchronous ventilation (ICC-CPR) in cardiac arrest.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid/LWW) and the Cochrane Libraries were searched up from inception to July 31, 2022. Human and animal studies comparing CCC-CPR versus ICC-CPR were included. Outcome variables were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), time to ROSC, survival to discharge, 1-month survival, survival at 4 h, good neurological function, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and other clinical parameters. Jadad Scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the study quality and risk of bias.

RESULTS

The systematic search identified eight studies on humans and twelve studies on animal trials. There were no significant differences in ROSC (odd ratios [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.32; P = 0.55), survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.04; 95%CI 0.77-1.42; P = 0.79), 1-month survival (OR 1.07; 95%CI 0.84-1.36; P = 0.57), and good neurological outcome (OR 0.92; 95%CI 0.84-1.01, P = 0.09) between CCC-CPR and ICC-CPR in human studies. In animal trials, CCC-CPR had significantly higher rate of ROSC (OR = 1.81; 95% CI: 0.94-3.49; P = 0.07), survival at 4 h (OR 2.57; 95% CI: 1.16-5.72; P = 0.02) and MAP (mean difference [MD] 0.79, 95% CI: 0.04-1.53; P = 0.04), even though no significant differences in ROSC time, arterial potential of hydrogen (pH) and partial tension of carbon dioxide (PaCO2).

CONCLUSION

CCC-CPR did not show superiority in human outcomes compared with ICC-CPR, but its effect value was significantly increased in animal experiments. We should take the positive outcomes from animals and apply them to human models, and more physiological mechanisms need to be confirmed in CPR patients with different compression-ventilation strategies to improve the prognosis of cardiac arrest.

Bi-Level ventilation decreases pulmonary shunt and modulates neuroinflammation in a cardiopulmonary resuscitation model

Background

Optimal ventilation strategies during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are still heavily debated and poorly understood. So far, no convincing evidence could be presented in favour of outcome relevance and necessity of specific ventilation patterns. In recent years, alternative models to the guideline-based intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) have been proposed. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated a bi-level ventilation approach in a porcine model to assess possible physiological advantages for the pulmonary system as well as resulting changes in neuroinflammation compared to standard measures.

Methods

Sixteen male German landrace pigs were anesthetized and instrumented with arterial and venous catheters. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and the animals were left untreated and without ventilation for 4 minutes. After randomization, the animals were assigned to either the guideline-based group (IPPV, tidal volume 8–10 ml/kg, respiratory rate 10/min, F_iO₂1.0) or the bi-level group (inspiratory pressure levels 15–17 cmH₂O/5cmH₂O, respiratory rate 10/min, F_iO₂1.0). Mechanical chest compressions and interventional ventilation were initiated and after 5 minutes, blood samples, including ventilation/perfusion measurements via multiple inert gas elimination technique, were taken. After 8 minutes, advanced life support including adrenaline administration and defibrillations were started for up to 4 cycles. Animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 6 hours and lungs and brain tissue were harvested for further analyses.

Results

Five of the IPPV and four of the bi-level animals achieved ROSC. While there were no significant differences in gas exchange or hemodynamic values, bi-level treated animals showed less pulmonary shunt directly after ROSC and a tendency to lower inspiratory pressures during CPR. Additionally, cytokine expression of tumour necrosis factor alpha was significantly reduced in hippocampal tissue compared to IPPV animals.

Conclusion

Bi-level ventilation with a constant positive end expiratory pressure and pressure-controlled ventilation is not inferior in terms of oxygenation and decarboxylation when compared to guideline-based IPPV ventilation. Additionally, bi-level ventilation showed signs for a potentially ameliorated neurological outcome as well as less pulmonary shunt following experimental resuscitation. Given the restrictions of the animal model, these advantages should be further examined.