Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 555

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Death by hyperventilation: A common and life-threatening problem during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Aufderheide, Tom P., Lurie, Keith G.·2004·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

CONTEXT: This translational research initiative focused on the physiology of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) initiated by a clinical observation of consistent hyperventilation by professional rescuers in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This observation generated scientific hypotheses that could only ethically be tested in the animal laboratory. OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that excessive ventilation rates during performance of CPR by overzealous but well-trained rescue personnel causes a significant decrease in coronary perfusion pressure and an increased likelihood of death. DESIGN AND SETTING: In the in vivo human aspect of the study, we set out to objectively and electronically record rate and duration of ventilation during performance of CPR by trained professional rescue personnel in a prospective clinical trial in intubated, adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In the in vivo animal aspect of the study, to simulate the clinically observed hyperventilation, nine pigs in cardiac arrest were ventilated in a random order with 12, 20, or 30 breaths/min, and physiologic variables were assessed. Next, three groups of seven pigs in cardiac arrest were ventilated at 12 breaths/min with 100% oxygen, 30 breaths/min with 100% oxygen, or 30 breaths/min with 5% CO2/95% oxygen, and survival was assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ventilation rate and duration in humans; mean intratracheal pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, and survival rates in animals. RESULTS: In 13 consecutive adults (average age, 63 +/- 5.8 yrs) receiving CPR (seven men) the average ventilation rate was 30 +/- 3.2 breaths/min (range, 15 to 49 breaths/min) and the average duration of each breath was 1.0 +/- 0.07 sec. The average percentage of time in which a positive pressure was recorded in the lungs was 47.3 +/- 4.3%. No patient survived. In animals treated with 12, 20, and 30 breaths/min, the mean intratracheal pressures and coronary perfusion pressures were 7.1 +/- 0.7, 11.6 +/- 0.7, 17.5 +/- 1.0 mm Hg/min (p < .0001) and 23.4 +/- 1.0, 19.5 +/- 1.8, 16.9 +/- 1.8 mm Hg (p = .03) with each of the different ventilation rates, respectively (p = comparison of 12 breaths/min vs. 30 breaths/min for mean intratracheal pressure and coronary perfusion pressure). Survival rates were six of seven, one of seven, and one of seven with 12, 30, and 30 + CO2 breaths/min, respectively (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite seemingly adequate training, professional rescuers consistently hyperventilated patients during out-of-hospital CPR. Subsequent hemodynamic and survival studies in pigs demonstrated that excessive ventilation rates significantly decreased coronary perfusion pressures and survival rates, despite supplemental CO2 to prevent hypocapnia. This translational research initiative demonstrates an inversely proportional relationship between mean intratracheal pressure and coronary perfusion pressure during CPR. Additional education of CPR providers is urgently needed to reduce these newly identified and deadly consequences of hyperventilation during CPR. These findings also have significant implications for interpretation and design of resuscitation research, CPR guidelines, education, the development of biomedical devices, emergency medical services quality assurance, and clinical practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000134335.46859.09

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Aufderheide, T. P., & Lurie, K. G.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2004-09
Volume
32
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S345-S351
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026353979
Cited by
555
References
0
FWCI
18.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.