Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs

Qiuming Liao, Trygve Sjöberg, Audrius Paskevicius, Björn Wohlfart and Stig Steen*

Author Affiliations

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital/Lund, Lund, Sweden

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2010, 10:53  doi:10.1186/1471-2261-10-53

Published: 28 October 2010

Abstract

Background

Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR.

Methods

30 kg pigs were anesthetized and intubated. After a base-line period and five minutes of ventricular fibrillation, manual CPR (n = 8) or LUCAS-CPR (n = 8) was started and run for 20 minutes. Professional paramedics gave manual chest compression's alternating in 2-minute periods. Ventilation, one breath for each 10 compressions, was given to all animals. Defibrillation and, if needed, adrenaline were given to obtain a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

Results

The mean coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the mechanical group, around 20 mmHg, compared to around 5 mmHg in the manual group. In the manual group 54 rib fractures occurred compared to 33 in the LUCAS group (p < 0.01). In the manual group one severe liver injury and one pressure pneumothorax were also seen. All 8 pigs in the mechanical group achieved ROSC, as compared with 3 pigs in the manual group.

Conclusions

LUCAS-CPR gave significantly higher coronary perfusion pressure and significantly fewer rib fractures than manual CPR in this porcine model.