↓ Skip to main content

Haemodynamic outcomes during piston-based mechanical CPR with or without active decompression in a porcine model of cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Haemodynamic outcomes during piston-based mechanical CPR with or without active decompression in a porcine model of cardiac arrest
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0496-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikkel T. Steinberg, Jan-Aage Olsen, Morten Eriksen, Andres Neset, Per Andreas Norseng, Jo Kramer-Johansen, Bjarne Madsen Hardig, Lars Wik

Abstract

Experimental active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR is associated with increased haemodynamic outcomes compared to standard mechanical chest compressions. Since no clinically available mechanical chest compression device is capable of ACD-CPR, we modified the LUCAS 2 (Physio-Control, Lund, Sweden) to deliver ACD-CPR, hypothesising it would improve haemodynamic outcomes compared with standard LUCAS CPR on pigs with cardiac arrest. The modified LUCAS delivering 5 cm compressions with or without 2 cm active decompression above anatomical chest level was studied in a randomized crossover design on 19 Norwegian domestic pigs. VF was electrically induced and untreated for 2 min. Each pig received ACD-CPR and standard mechanical CPR in three 180-s. phases. We measured aortic, right atrial, coronary perfusion, intracranial and oesophageal pressure, cerebral and carotid blood flow and cardiac output. Two-sided paired samples t-test was used for continuous parametric data and Wilcoxon test for non-parametric data. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Due to injuries/device failure, the experimental protocol was completed in nine of 19 pigs. Cardiac output (l/min, median, (25, 75-percentiles): 1.5 (1.1, 1.7) vs. 1.1 (0.8, 1.5), p < 0.01), cerebral blood flow (AU, 297 vs. 253, mean difference: 44, 95% CI; 14-74, p = 0.01), and carotid blood flow (l/min, median, (25, 75-percentiles): 97 (70, 106) vs. 83 (57, 94), p < 0.01) were higher during ACD-CPR compared to standard mechanical CPR. Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) trended towards higher in end decompression phase. Cardiac output and brain blood flow improved with mechanical ACD-CPR and CPP trended towards higher during end-diastole compared to standard LUCAS CPR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 40%
Engineering 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,948,821
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,129
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,901
of 326,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#31
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.