4.3 Article

Pralidoxime administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation facilitates successful resuscitation in a pig model of cardiac arrest

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1440-1681.13198

关键词

blood pressure; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; haemodynamic; heart arrest

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2018R1A2B6001388]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pralidoxime is a common antidote for organophosphate poisoning; however, studies have also reported pralidoxime's pressor effect, which may facilitate the restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest by improving coronary perfusion pressure (CPP). We investigated the immediate cardiovascular effects of pralidoxime in anaesthetised normal rats and the effects of pralidoxime administration during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in a pig model of cardiac arrest. To evaluate the immediate cardiovascular effects of pralidoxime, seven anaesthetised normal rats received saline or pralidoxime (20 mg/kg) in a randomised crossover design, and the responses were determined using the conductance catheter technique. To evaluate the effects of pralidoxime administration during CPR, 22 pigs randomly received either 80 mg/kg of pralidoxime or an equivalent volume of saline during CPR. In the rats, pralidoxime significantly increased arterial pressure than saline (P = .044). The peak effect on arterial pressure was observed in the first minute. In a pig model of cardiac arrest, CPP during CPR was higher in the pralidoxime group than in the control group (P = .002). ROSC was attained in three animals (27.3%) in the control group and nine animals (81.8%) in the pralidoxime group (P = .010). Three animals (27.3%) in the control group and eight animals (72.2%) in the pralidoxime group survived the 6-hour period (P = .033). In conclusion, pralidoxime had a rapid onset of pressor effect. Pralidoxime administered during CPR led to significantly higher rates of ROSC and 6-hour survival by improving CPP in a pig model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据