Introduction
There are no studies comparing synchronized and non-synchronized ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation (BVMV) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in pediatric patients. The main aim is to compare between synchronized and non-synchronized BVMV with chest compressions (CC), and between guided and non-guided CC with a real-time feedback-device in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest (CA). The secondary aim is to analyze the quality of CC during resuscitation.
Methods
60 piglets were randomized for CPR into four groups: Group A: guided-CC and synchronized ventilation; Group B: guided-CC and non-synchronized ventilation; Group C: non-guided CC and synchronized ventilation; Group D: non-guided CC and non-synchronized ventilation. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and quality of CC were compared between all groups.
Results
60 piglets were included. Twenty-six (46.5%) achieved ROSC: A (46.7%), B (66.7%), C (26.7%) and D (33.3%). Survival rates were higher in group B than in groups A+C+D (66.7% vs 35.6%, p = 0.035). ROSC was higher with guided-CC (A+B 56.7% vs C+D 30%, p = 0.037). Piglets receiving non-synchronized ventilation did not show different rates of ROSC than synchronized ventilation (B+D 50% vs A+C 36.7%, p = 0.297). Non-synchronized groups showed lower arterial pCO
2
after 3 minutes of CPR than synchronized groups: 57 vs 71 mmHg, p = 0.019. No differences were found in arterial pH and pO
2
, mean arterial pressure (MAP) or cerebral blood flow between groups. Chest compressions were shallower in surviving than in non-surviving piglets (4.7 vs 5.1 cm, p = 0.047). There was a negative correlation between time without CC and MAP (r = -0.35, p = 0.038).
Conclusions
The group receiving non-synchronized ventilation and guided-CC obtained significantly higher ROSC rates than the other modalities of resuscitation. Guided-CC achieved higher ROSC rates than non-guided CC. Non-synchronized ventilation was associated with better ventilation parameters, with no differences in hemodynamics or cerebral flow.
Background: Post-extubation upper airway obstruction (UAO) is a frequent complication causing stridor and respiratory distress, which occasionally require reintubation, thereby increasing morbidity and mortality rates. Contradictory results have been obtained in studies assessing the effectiveness of steroids in preventing postextubation UAO, and the available evidence is limited. We designed a multicentric randomized, placebo-controlled study to explore the effectiveness of dexamethasone in preventing post-extubation UAO in children. Methods: A multicentric, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase IV clinical trial has been designed. The sample will include pediatric patients who are between 1 month and 16 years of age and who have been intubated for more than 48 h. Patients who have airway disorders or who have received steroids within the previous seven days will be excluded. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either placebo or a therapy with dexamethasone 0.25 mg/kg every 6 h to be started 6 to 12 h prior to extubation (to a total of four doses). Randomization will be performed at a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up of patients will be carried out for 48 h after extubation. The main objective of this study is to access the reduction in the incidence of moderate to severe UAO symptoms following extubation. Secondary objectives include assessing the decrease in the incidence of reintubation, evaluating the use of additional therapies for UAO, and monitoring potential side effects of dexamethasone. Discussion: The results of this study will contribute to the existing evidence on prophylaxis for post-extubation airway obstruction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.