Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The use of 100% compared to 50% oxygen during ineffective experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves brain oxygenation.

Resuscitation 2023 January
INTRODUCTION: Perfusion pressure and chest compression quality are generally considered key determinants of brain oxygenation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the impact of oxygen administration is less clear. We compared ventilation with 100% and 50% oxygen during ineffective manual chest compressions and hypothesized that 100% oxygen would improve brain oxygenation.

METHODS: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced electrically in anaesthetized pigs and left untreated for 5 minutes, followed by randomization to ineffective manual CPR with ventilation of 50% or 100% oxygen. The first defibrillation was performed 10 minutes after induction of VF, and CPR continued with mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS2™) and defibrillation every 2 minutes until 36 minutes or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Brain oxygenation was measured with near-infrared spectroscopy (rSO2 ) and invasive brain tissue oxygen (PbtO2 ) with a probe (NEUROVENT-PTO, RAUMEDIC) inserted into frontal brain tissue. Cerebral oxygenation was compared between groups with Mann-Whitney U tests and linear mixed models.

RESULTS: Twenty-eight pigs were included in the study: 14 subjects in each group. During ineffective chest compressions relative PbtO2 was higher in the group ventilated with 100% compared to 50% oxygen (5.2 mmHg [1.4-20.5] vs 2.2 [0.8-6.8], p = 0.001), but there was no difference in rSO2 (22% [16-28] vs 18 [15-25], p = 0.090). The use of 50% or 100% oxygen showed no difference in relative PbtO2 (p = 1.00) and rSO2 (p = 0.206) during mechanical CPR.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of 100% compared to 50% oxygen during ineffective manual CPR improved brain oxygenation measured invasively in brain tissue, but there was no difference in rSO2 .

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app