Dataset Information

Aerosol generation during chest compression and defibrillation in a swine cardiac arrest model.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

It remains unclear whether cardiac arrest (CA) resuscitation generates aerosols that can transmit respiratory pathogens. We hypothesize that chest compression and defibrillation generate aerosols that could contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a swine CA model.

Methods

To simulate witnessed CA with bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 3 female non-intubated swine underwent 4?min of ventricular fibrillation without chest compression or defibrillation (no-flow) followed by ten 2-min cycles of mechanical chest compression and defibrillation without ventilation. The diameter (0.3-10??m) and quantity of aerosols generated during 45-s intervals of no-flow and chest compression before and after defibrillation were analyzed by a particle analyzer. Aerosols generated from the coughs of 4 healthy human subjects were also compared to aerosols generated by swine.

Results

There was no significant difference between the total aerosols generated during chest compression before defibrillation compared to no-flow. In contrast, chest compression after defibrillation generated significantly more aerosols than chest compression before defibrillation or no-flow (72.4?±?41.6?×?10⁴ vs 12.3?±?8.3?×?10⁴ vs 10.5?±?11.2?×?10⁴; p?4 aerosols with a size distribution smaller than post-defibrillation chest compression.

Conclusions

Chest compressions alone did not cause significant aerosol generation in this swine model. However, increased aerosol generation was detected during chest compression immediately following defibrillation. Additional research is needed to elucidate the clinical significance and mechanisms by which aerosol generation during chest compression is modified by defibrillation.

SUBMITTER: Hsu CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833865 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aerosol generation during chest compression and defibrillation in a swine cardiac arrest model.

Hsu Cindy H CH Tiba Mohamad H MH Boehman André L AL McCracken Brendan M BM Leander Danielle C DC Francalancia Stephanie C SC Pickell Zachary Z Sanderson Thomas H TH Ward Kevin R KR Neumar Robert W RW

Resuscitation 20201215

<h4>Aim</h4>It remains unclear whether cardiac arrest (CA) resuscitation generates aerosols that can transmit respiratory pathogens. We hypothesize that chest compression and defibrillation generate aerosols that could contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a swine CA model.<h4>Methods</h4>To simulate witnessed CA with bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 3 female non-intubated swine underwent 4 min of ventricular fibrillation without chest compression or defibrillation (no-flow) followed ...[more]

PMID: 33338570

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.Materials and methodsA prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change the chest compression position without interruption during CPR was developed, and its performance was compared with LUCAS 3 in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, 16 male pigs were randomly assigned into the two groups, ROSCER CPR (n = 8) and LUCAS 3 CPR (n = 8), respectively. During 5 minutes of CPR, hemodynamic parameters including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, common carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure were measured.ResultsIn the compression performance test using a mannequin, compression depth, compression time, decompression time, and plateau time were almost equal between ROSCER and LUCAS 3. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, coronary perfusion pressure showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.409). Systolic aortic pressure and carotid blood flow were higher in the LUCAS 3 group than in the ROSCER group during 5 minutes of CPR (p < 0.001, p = 0.008, respectively). End-tidal CO2 level of the ROSCER group was initially lower than that of the LUCAS 3 group, but was higher over time (p = 0.022). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for ROSC also showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.46).ConclusionThe prototype of a remote-controlled automated chest compression device can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR. In a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest, the device showed no inferior performance to a conventional mechanical CPR device.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent 2005 guidelines for advanced cardiac life support strongly recommend immediate defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, findings from experimental and clinical studies have indicated a potential advantage of pretreatment with chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to defibrillation in improving outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the beneficial effect of chest compression-first versus defibrillation-first on survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsMain outcome measures were survival to hospital discharge (primary endpoint), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), neurologic outcome and long-term survival. Randomized, controlled clinical trials that were published between January 1, 1950, and June 19, 2010, were identified by a computerized search using SCOPUS, MEDLINE, BIOS, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, and Web of Science and supplemented by conference proceedings. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). A subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the effects of response interval greater than 5 min on outcomes.ResultsA total of four trials enrolling 1503 subjects were integrated into this analysis. No difference was found between chest compression-first versus defibrillation-first in the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (OR 1.01 [0.82-1.26]; P = 0.979), survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.70]; P = 0.686) or favorable neurologic outcomes (OR 1.02 [0.31-3.38]; P = 0.979). For 1-year survival, however, the OR point estimates favored chest compression first (OR 1.38 [0.95-2.02]; P = 0.092) but the 95% CI crossed 1.0, suggesting insufficient estimate precision. Similarly, for cases with prolonged response times (> 5 min) point estimates pointed toward superiority of chest compression first (OR 1.45 [0.66-3.20]; P = 0.353), but the 95% CI again crossed 1.0.ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not support the notion that chest compression first prior to defibrillation improves the outcome of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It appears that both treatments are equivalent. However, subgroup analyses indicate that chest compression first may be beneficial for cardiac arrests with a prolonged response time.

Dataset Information

Aerosol generation during chest compression and defibrillation in a swine cardiac arrest model.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Aerosol generation during chest compression and defibrillation in a swine cardiac arrest model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets