(en) BACKGROUND: Guidelines for depth of chest compressions in pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are based on sparse evidence. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the two most widely recommended chest compression depth levels for pediatric CPR (1.5 in. and 1/3 the anterior-posterior diameter- APd) in a controlled swine model of asphyxial cardiac arrest. METHODS: We executed a 2-group, randomized laboratory study with an adaptive design allowing early termination for overwhelming injury or benefit. Forty mixed-breed domestic swine (mean weight = 26 kg) were sedated, anesthetized and paralyzed along with endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Asphyxial cardiac arrest was induced with fentanyl overdose. Animals were untreated for 9 min followed by mechanical CPR with a target depth of 1.5 in. or 1/3 the APd. Advanced life support drugs were administered IV after 4 min of basic resuscitation followed by defibrillation at 14 min. The primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamics and CPR-related injury severity. RESULTS: Enrollment in the 1/3 APd group was stopped early due to overwhelming differences in injury. Twenty-three animals were assigned to the 1.5 in. group and 15 assigned to the 1/3 APd group, per an adaptive group design. The 1/3 APd group had increased frequency of rib fracture (6.7 vs 1.7, p < 0.001) and higher proportions of several anatomic injury markers than the 1.5 in. group, including sternal fracture, hemothorax and blood in the endotracheal tube (p < 0.001). ROSC and hemodynamic measures were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In this pediatric model of cardiac arrest, chest compressions to 1/3APd were more harmful without a concurrent benefit for resuscitation outcomes compared to the 1.5 in. compression group.
Salcido, D. D., Koller, A. C., Genbrugge, C., Fink, E. L., Berg, R. A., & Menegazzi, J. J. (2022). Injury characteristics and hemodynamics associated with guideline-compliant CPR in a pediatric porcine cardiac arrest model. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 51(1), 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.10.030 (Original work published 2022)