↓ Skip to main content

Developing a kinematic understanding of chest compressions: the impact of depth and release time on blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Developing a kinematic understanding of chest compressions: the impact of depth and release time on blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12938-015-0095-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua W. Lampe, Yin Tai, George Bratinov, Theodore R. Weiland, Christopher L. Kaufman, Robert A. Berg, Lance B. Becker

Abstract

Effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a critical component of the pre-hospital treatment of cardiac arrest victims. Mechanical chest compression (MCC) devices enable the delivery of MCC waveforms that could not be delivered effectively by hand. While chest compression generated blood flow has been studied for more than 50 years, the relation between sternum kinematics (depth over time) and the resulting blood flow have not been well described. Using a five parameter MCC model, we studied the effect of MCC depth, MCC release time, and their interaction on MCC generated blood flow in a highly instrumented swine model of cardiac arrest. MCC hemodynamics were studied in 17 domestic swine (~30 kg) using multiple extra-vascular flow probes and standard physiological monitoring. After 10 min of untreated ventricular fibrillation, mechanical MCC were started. MCC varied such that sternal release occurred over 100, 200, or 300 ms. MCC were delivered at a rate of 100 per min and at a depth of 1.25″ (n = 9) or at a depth of 1.9″ (n = 8) for a total of 18 min. Transitions between release times occurred every 2 min and were randomized. Linear Mixed Models were used to estimate the effect of MCC depth, MCC release time, and the interaction between MCC depth and release time on physiological outcomes. Blood pressures were optimized by a 200 ms release. End tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) was optimized by a 100 ms release. Blood flows were significantly lower at a 300 ms release than at either a 100 or 200 ms release (p < 0.05). 1.9″ deep MCC improved EtCO2, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, inferior vena cava blood flow, carotid blood flow, and renal vein blood flow relative to 1.25″ MCC. Deeper MCC improved several hemodynamic parameters. Chest compressions with a 300 ms release time generated less blood flow than chest compressions with faster release times. MCC release time is an important quantitative metric of MCC quality and, if optimized, could improve MCC generated blood flows and pressures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Engineering 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 26%
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 19 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,915
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#565
of 823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,249
of 285,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 823 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 285,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.