Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an experimental canine model

K. B. Kern, A. B. Carter, R. L. Showen, W. D. Voorhees, C. F. Babbs, W. A. Tacker, G. A. Ewy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


Manual and mechanical chest compressions during CPR were compared in the canine model. Endpoints were hemodynamics produced during CPR, resuscitation success at 30 min, 24-h survival, neurologic function of survivors, and CPR-produced trauma. Ten animals in each group underwent 20 min of ventricular fibrillation, during which CPR was performed for 17 min. Hemodynamics produced with manual and mechanical chest compressions were similar. Seven of ten animals in each group were resuscitated. Five animals from the manual group and four animals from the mechanical group survived for 24 h. Neurologic function of survivors was excellent and similar in each group. There was no significant difference in trauma between the two types of chest compression. The similar results for manual and mechanical chest compression in this canine model suggest that different experimental CPR studies can be compared regardless or whether manual or mechanical chest compressions were performed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)899-903
Number of pages5
JournalCritical care medicine
Issue number11
StatePublished - 1985

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an experimental canine model'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this