A comparison between the two methods of chest compression in infant and neonatal resuscitation. A review according to 2010 CPR guidelines

Aim: The quality of chest compression (CC) delivered during neonatal and infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is identified as the most important factor to achieve the increase of survival rate without major neurological deficit to the patients. The objective of the study was to systematically review all the available studies that have compared the two different techniques of hand placement on infants and neonatal resuscitation, from 2010 to 2015 and to highlight which method is more effective. Methods: A review of the literature using a variety of medical databases, including Cochrane, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS electronic databases. The following MeSH terms were used in the search: infant, neonatal, CPR, CC, two-thumb (TT) technique/method, two-finger (TF) technique/method, rescuer fatigue, thumb/finger position/placement, as well as combinations of these. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; nine observational studies and a randomized controlled trial. All providers performed either continuous TF or TT technique CCs and the majority of CPR performance was taken place in infant trainer manikin. Conclusions: The majority of the studies suggest the TT method as the more useful for infants and neonatal resuscitation than the TF. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilation improve survival in a neonatal swine model of asphyxial cardiac arrest

Background: Guidelines for neonatal resuscitation recommend a 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio. However, this recommendation is based on expert opinion and consensus rather than strong scientific evidence. Our primary aim was to assess whether continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations would increase return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate and survival compared to the 3:1 chest compression to ventilation ratio. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, laboratory study. Twenty male Landrace-Large White pigs, aged 1–4 days with an average weight 1.650 ± 228.3 g were asphyxiated and left untreated until heart rate was less than 60 bpm or mean arterial pressure was below 15 mmHg. Animals were then randomly assigned to receive either continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations (n = 10), or standard (3:1) chest compression to ventilation ratio (n = 10). Heart rate and arterial pressure were assessed every 30 s during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until ROSC or asystole. All animals with ROSC were monitored for 4 h. Results: Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) at 30 s of CPR was significantly higher in the experimental group (45.7 ± 16.9 vs. 21.8 ± 6 mmHg, p < 0.001) and remained significantly elevated throughout the experiment. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) was also significantly higher in the experimental group throughout the experiment (23.4 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 5.9 mmHg, p < 0.001). ROSC was observed in six (60%) animals treated with 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio and nine (90%) animals treated with continuous chest compressions and asynchronous ventilation (p = 0.30). Time to ROSC was significantly lower in the experimental group (30 (30−30) vs. 60 (60–60) sec, p = 0.021). Of note, 7 (77.8%) animals in the experimental group and 1 (16.7%) animal in the control group achieved ROSC after 30 s (0.02). At 4 h, 2 (20%) animals survived in the control group compared to 7 (70%) animals in the experimental group (p = 0.022). Conclusion: Continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations significantly improved CPP, ETCO2, time to ROSC, ROSC at 30 s and survival in a porcine model of neonatal resuscitation. © 2021 Elsevier Inc

Continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilation improve survival in a neonatal swine model of asphyxial cardiac arrest

Background: Guidelines for neonatal resuscitation recommend a 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio. However, this recommendation is based on expert opinion and consensus rather than strong scientific evidence. Our primary aim was to assess whether continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations would increase return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate and survival compared to the 3:1 chest compression to ventilation ratio. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, laboratory study. Twenty male Landrace-Large White pigs, aged 1–4 days with an average weight 1.650 ± 228.3 g were asphyxiated and left untreated until heart rate was less than 60 bpm or mean arterial pressure was below 15 mmHg. Animals were then randomly assigned to receive either continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations (n = 10), or standard (3:1) chest compression to ventilation ratio (n = 10). Heart rate and arterial pressure were assessed every 30 s during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until ROSC or asystole. All animals with ROSC were monitored for 4 h. Results: Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) at 30 s of CPR was significantly higher in the experimental group (45.7 ± 16.9 vs. 21.8 ± 6 mmHg, p < 0.001) and remained significantly elevated throughout the experiment. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) was also significantly higher in the experimental group throughout the experiment (23.4 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 5.9 mmHg, p < 0.001). ROSC was observed in six (60%) animals treated with 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio and nine (90%) animals treated with continuous chest compressions and asynchronous ventilation (p = 0.30). Time to ROSC was significantly lower in the experimental group (30 (30−30) vs. 60 (60–60) sec, p = 0.021). Of note, 7 (77.8%) animals in the experimental group and 1 (16.7%) animal in the control group achieved ROSC after 30 s (0.02). At 4 h, 2 (20%) animals survived in the control group compared to 7 (70%) animals in the experimental group (p = 0.022). Conclusion: Continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations significantly improved CPP, ETCO2, time to ROSC, ROSC at 30 s and survival in a porcine model of neonatal resuscitation. © 2021 Elsevier Inc