Effects of Changes in Inspiratory Time on Inspiratory Flowrate and Airway Pressure during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Manikin-Based Study

Article information

Kosin Med J. 2021;36(2):100-108
Publication date (electronic) : 2021 December 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2021.36.2.100
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
2Department of Emergency Medicine, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
Corresponding Author: Su Yeong Pyo, Department of Emergency Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, 776, Sunhwan-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si 28644, Republic of Korea, Tel: +82-43-269-6999, Fax: +82-43-269-6954, E-mail: hehehe3535@gmail.com
Received 2021 June 03; Revised 2021 October 25; Accepted 2021 October 25.

Abstract

Objectives

Given that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an aerosol-generating procedure, it is necessary to use a mechanical ventilator and reduce the number of providers involved in resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients or suspected COVID-19 patients. However, no study assessed the effect of changes in inspiratory time on flowrate and airway pressure during CPR. We herein aimed to determine changes in these parameters during CPR and identify appropriate ventilator management for adults during CPR.

Methods

We measured changes in tidal volume (Vt), peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean) according to changes in inspiratory time (0.75 s, 1.0 s and 1.5 s) with or without CPR. Vt of 500 mL was supplied (flowrate: 10 times/min) using a mechanical ventilator. Chest compressions were maintained at constant compression depth (53 ± 2 mm) and speed (102 ± 2/min) using a mechanical chest compression device.

Results

Median levels of respiratory physiological parameters during CPR were significantly different according to the inspiratory time (0.75 s vs. 1.5 s): PIFR (80.8 [73.3 – 87.325] vs. 70.5 [67 – 72.4] L/min, P < 0.001), Ppeak (54 [48 – 59] vs. 47 [45 – 49] cmH2O, P < 0.001), and Pmean (3.9 [3.6 – 4.1] vs. 5.7 [5.6 – 5.8] cmH2O, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Changes in PIFR, Ppeak, and Pmean were associated with inspiratory time. PIFR and Ppeak values tended to decrease with increase in inspiratory time, while Pmean showed a contrasting trend. Increased inspiratory time in low-compliance cardiac arrest patients will help in reducing lung injury during adult CPR.

Globally, there has been a surge in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases, and COVID-19 patients have outnumbered healthcare systems in terms of the surge capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare systems have been facing burden by taking care of not only suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases but also many critically ill patients with other diseases simultaneously.1,2 In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the safety of clinicians during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has become concerning. CPR is known to be one of the aerosol-generating procedures, especially in high amounts, performed on patients.3 This devastating pandemic has led to re-consideration of the risk–benefit balance for CPR. According to the American Heart Association interim guidelines, it is reasonable to reduce the number of providers involved in a resuscitation effort, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients or suspected COVID-19 patients.4 Therefore, intubated patients should be placed on a mechanical ventilator (MV) equipped with a high-efficiency particulate air filter to maintain a closed circuit and reduce aerosolization.4 Under such dreadful circumstances, the use of MVs during CPR has the advantage of reducing the workload of the medical staff and reducing the medical staff members’ exposure of infectious diseases.

However, in real world, an increasing number of cardiac arrest patients are still using manual self-inflating bags rather than MVs owing to the fear about barotrauma generated with the use of MV. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence and experience about the use of MV during CPR and the difficulty in operating the MV machine. Moreover, no study has investigated the effect of changes in inspiratory time on the inspiratory flowrate and airway pressure during CPR.

This study aimed to measure changes in tidal volume (Vt), peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), and peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) with regard to inspiratory time of MV during CPR and to identify the appropriate ventilator method for adults during CPR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Simulation Design and Data Collection

To observe the physiological changes according to the changes in inspiratory time in MV use during CPR, we considered different inspiratory times (0.75 s, inspiration-to-expiration (I:E) ratio 1:7; 1.0 s, I:E ratio 1:5; and 1.5 s, I:E ratio 1:3). The 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation suggested the use of an inspiratory time of 1 s along with enough volume to produce a normal chest rise.5 Therefore, we planned to compare the inspiratory time between 1 s and more and less. We used a CPR manikin (Resusci Anne Skill Reporter™, Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway). The lung compliance of the CPR manikin was set within the range of 0.022 – 0.03 L/cmH2O, which was similar to the lung compliance measured in patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) (0.022 L/cmH2O).6 An endotracheal tube (ETT) (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland), with an internal diameter of 7.0 mm, was connected to the artificial airway of the CPR manikin performed by the same emergency medicine doctor. The ETT was fixed at 21 cm. A flow analyzer (Flowanalyser™ PF-300, Imtmedical, Switzerland) was connected to the ETT to measure the changes in Ppeak, Pmean, PIFR, and Vt among the various inspiratory times in MV use. For constant ventilation support, an MV (H-C3, HAMILTON, Switzerland) was used under the following conditions: volume-controlled mandatory ventilation, Vt of 500-mL, constant flow pattern, ventilation rate of 10 breaths/min, positive-end expiratory pressure of 0 cmH2O, maximum trigger limit, and maximum pressure limit.7

To compare the physiological changes that occur during CPR, we divided the study into two groups (no CPR group and CPR group). In the CPR group, physiological changes were continuously measured during chest compression. A mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS2, Stryker Medical, 3800 E. Centre Ave. Portage, Michigan, USA) was used to maintain constant chest compression depth and rate (LUCAS2, mode: active continuous, chest compression rate 102 ± 2/minute, chest compression depth 53 ± 2 mm). Each group was continuously measured using the flow analyzer for 10 min.

Statistical Analyses

Between-group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables. Continuous variables are presented as medians with interquartile ranges. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons (P < 0.05/3 in the three groups). Data were analyzed using PASW/SPSS, version 22.0 (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Significance level was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

In the no CPR group, compliance and resistance were 27 mL/cmH2O and 18 cmH2O/L/s, respectively. Constant ventilation volume was measured despite changes in inspiratory time (Table 1). The manikin used in this study is shown in Figure 1.

Tidal volume of the simulation manikin according to inspiration time

Fig. 1

Manikin model: CPR manikin with airway circuit connected to the flow analyzer. A mechanical chest compression device is installed in the manikin.

No CPR Group

PIFR (0.75 s: 40.8 L/min [40.5 – 41.2], 1.0 s: 31.15 L/min [30.1 – 31.8], and 1.5 s: 22.9 L/min [22.2 – 23.2]) and Ppeak (0.75 s mm: 34 cmH2O [32 – 36], 1.0 s: 31 cmH2O [24 – 33], and 1.5 s: 28 cmH2O [24 – 29]) tended to decrease with increasing inspiratory time. However, Pmean (0.75 s: 3.15 cmH2O [3 – 3.4], 1.0 s: 3.8 cmH2O [2.9 – 3.9], and 1.5 s: 4.9 cmH2O [4.2 – 5.1]) tended to increase with increasing inspiratory time (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Changes of the flow rate (A), peak airway pressure (B), and mean airway pressure (C) according to each inspiratory times (0.75 s, 1.0 s and 1.5 s). Bonferroni correction for multiplicity, P < 0.05/3.

There was a significant difference when comparing inspiratory time (1.0 s vs. 1.5 s): PIFR (31.15 L/min [30.1 – 31.8] vs. 22.9 L/min [22.2 – 23.2], P < 0.001), Ppeak (31 cmH2O [24 – 33] vs. 28 cmH2O [24 – 29] P = 0.009), and Pmean (3.8 cmH2O [2.9 – 3.9] vs. 4.9 cmH2O [4.2 – 5.1] P < 0.001). Furthermore, a significant difference was observed when comparing other inspiratory time (0.75 s vs. 1.0 s): PIFR (40.8 L/min [40.5 – 41.2] vs. 31.15 L/min [30.1 – 31.8], P < 0.001), Ppeak (34 cmH2O [32 – 36] vs. 31 cmH2O [24 – 33], P < 0.001), and Pmean (3.15 cmH2O [3 – 3.4] vs. 3.8 cmH2O [2.9 – 3.9], P = 0.002) (Fig. 2).

CPR Group

The CPR group showed the same result as the no CPR group. PIFR and Ppeak tended to decrease with increasing inspiratory time in the CPR group: PIFR (0.75 s: 80.8 L/min [73.3 – 87.325], 1.0 s: 76.5 L/min [70.8 – 82.1], and 1.5 s: 70.5 L/min [67 – 72.4]), Ppeak (0.75 s: 54 cmH2O [48 – 59], 1.0 s: 53 cmH2O [48 – 57], and 1.5 s: 47 cmH2O [45 – 49]). However, Pmean tended to increase with increasing inspiratory time in the CPR group, with Pmean (0.75 s: 3.9 cmH2O [3.6 – 4.1], 1.0 s: 4.5 cmH2O [4.3 – 4.8], and 1.5 s: 5.7 cmH2O [5.6 – 5.8]).

There was a significant difference when comparing the inspiratory time (1.0 s vs. 1.5 s): PIFR (76.5 L/min [70.8 – 82.1] vs. 70.5 L/minute [67 – 72.4], P < 0.001), Pmean (4.5 cmH2O [4.3 – 4.8] vs. 5.7 cmH2O [5.6 – 5.8], P < 0.001). Furthermore, a significant difference was observed when comparing the inspiratory time (0.75 s vs. 1.0 s): PIFR (80.8 L/min [73.3 – 87.325] vs. 76.5 L/min [70.8 – 82.1], P < 0.001) and Pmean (3.9 cmH2O [3.6 – 4.1] vs. 4.5 cmH2O [4.3 – 4.8], P < 0.001) (Fig. 2).

A significant difference was observed in Ppeak between 1.5 s and the other inspiratory times: Ppeak (1.0 s vs. 1.5 s: 53 cmH2O [48 – 57] vs. 47 cmH2O [45 – 49], P < 0.001; and 0.75 s vs. 1.5 s: 54 cmH2O [48 – 59] vs. 47 cmH2O [45 – 49], P < 0.001). However, between the inspiratory times 0.75 s and 1.0 s, there was no significant difference in Ppeak (0.75s vs. 1.0s: 54 cmH2O [48 – 59] vs. 53 cmH2O [48 – 57], P = 0.153) (Fig. 2).

DISCUSSION

During chest compression, ventilation is an important part of high-quality CPR.810 Several investigations have demonstrated that adequate ventilation during CPR has a strong association with coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) and return of spontaneous circulation.4,11,12 For this reason, various monitoring methods, such as metronome, thoracic impedance, capnography, and tracheal pressure monitoring, have been proposed in previous studies to assess adequate ventilation and prevent excessive ventilation.1317 However, it is difficult to maintain adequate ventilation during CPR. Inadvertent hyperventilation occurs commonly during CPR, excessive positive- end pressure is created, leading to increased intrathoracic pressure and peak airway pressure, 18,19 which could decrease survival rates by reducing venous return, cardiac output, and CPP.2023 High airway pressure and high tidal volume are known to be associated with lung injury. When the peak airway pressure is 50 cmH2O or higher, it is suggested that the peak airway pressure causes progressive impairment in lung function and leads to acute respiratory failure in the animal model.24,25 Therefore, it is important to maintain a constant ventilation volume and appropriate peak airway pressure during resuscitation. Use of MV can be a good alternative to manual self-inflating bag ventilation.

Previous studies about the use of the automatic transport ventilator showed better outcomes than using self-inflating bag resuscitator,26,27 and one study using a manikin model showed that an MV was superior to a self-inflating bag resuscitator for maintaining adequate ventilation and adequate peak pressure during chest compression.28 According to Lee et al., who included patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery,29 prolonged inspiratory time on gas exchange decreased Ppeak but increased Pmean, similar to that observed in our study; this also resulted in a modest improvement in oxygenation and decreased shunt fraction during one-lung ventilation, although this study was not conducted in cardiac arrest patients.

In our study, the longer the inspiratory time, the lower the peak pressure. A peak pressure of 1.5 s was seen as a significant difference when comparing the inspiratory times 0.75 s and 1.0 s, almost kept below 50 cmH2O. Therefore, in cardiac arrest patients with poor lung compliance, the option of increasing the inspiratory time will prevent lung injury.

Pmean was increased with increasing inspiratory time. Although the increase in Pmean may be associated with reducing venous return to the right heart and thereby decreasing the hemodynamic effectiveness of CPR, the level of Pmean is not high (0.75 s: 3.9 cmH2O [3.6 – 4.1], 1.5 s: 5.7 cmH2O [5.6 – 5.8] and the impact is likely to be minimal.

The limitation of this study is the use of a manikin model has clear differences compared to normal human being. Wright et al30 showed that the difference in resistance, which was higher in a manikin than in a human, derived from having a tissue rigidity different from that of the human beings. This is because First, the branching structure of the airways and the irregular surface of the large airways cause more turbulence flow. Secondly, the ET tube may be deformed at body temperature or partial occlusion caused by secretion. Thirdly, the tube tip may also be pushed against tracheal wall or tending to bend tube with changes in head and neck position Therefore, animal study also may be an appropriate alternative.

In conclusion, changes in PIFR, Ppeak, and Pmean varied according to the inspiratory time. As the inspiratory time increased, PIFR and Ppeak tended to decrease, and Pmean tended to increase. Therefore, the use of increased inspiratory time in low compliance cardiac arrest patients will help in reducing lung injury during adult CPR. An adequate MV mode for human CPR needs to be identified in further studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.co.kr) for English language editing.

References

1. Hunter DJ. Covid-19 and the stiff upper lip—the pandemic response in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2020;382:e31.
2. Rosenbaum L. Facing Covid-19 in Italy—ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic’s front line. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1873–5.
3. DeFilippis EM, Ranard LS, Berg DD. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a view from trainees on the front line. Circulation 2020;141:1833–5.
4. Edelson DP, Sasson C, Chan PS, Atkins DL, Aziz K, Becker LB, et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 from the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation Adult and Pediatric Task Forces of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020;141:e933–e943.
5. Soar J, Callaway CW, Aibiki M, Böttiger BW, Brooks SC, Deakin CD, et al. Part 4: Advanced life support: 2015 International consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circulation 2015;95:e71–120.
6. Ornato JP, Bryson BL, Donovan PJ, Farquharson RR, Jaeger C. Measurement of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 1983;11:79–82.
7. Kim JW, Lee JW, Ryu S, Park JS, Yoo IS, Cho YC, et al. Changes in peak inspiratory flow rate and peak airway pressure with endotracheal tube size during chest compression. World J Emerg Med 2020;11:97–101.
8. McInnes AD, Sutton RM, Orioles A, Nishisaki A, Niles D, Abella BS, et al. The first quantitative report of ventilation rate during in-hospital resuscitation of older children and adolescents. Resuscitation 2011;82:1025–9.
9. Aufderheide TP, Lurie KG. Death by hyperventilation: a common and life-threatening problem during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 2004;32:S345–51.
10. Park SO, Shin DH, Baek KJ, Hong DY, Kim EJ, Kim SC, et al. A clinical observational study analyzing the factors associated with hyperventilation during actual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department. Resuscitation 2013;84:298–303.
11. Halperin HR, Lee K, Zviman M, Illindala U, Lardo A, Kolandaivelu A, et al. Outcomes from low versus high-flow cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a swine model of cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med 2010;28:195–202.
12. Reynolds JC, Salcido DD, Menegazzi JJ. Coronary perfusion pressure and return of spontaneous circulation after prolonged cardiac arrest. Pre Hos Emerg Care 2010;14:78–84.
13. Kern KB, Stickney RE, Gallison L, Smith RE. Metronome improves compression and ventilation rates during CPD on a manikin in a randomized trial. Resuscitation 2010;81:206–10.
14. Abella BS, Edelson DP, Kim S, Retzer E, Myklebust H, Barry AM, et al. CPR quality improvement during in-hospital cardiac arrest using a real-time audiovisual feedback system. Resuscitation 2007;73:54–61.
15. Edelson DP, Litzinger B, Arora V, Walsh D, Kim S, Lauderdale DS, et al. Improving inhospital cardiac arrest process and outcomes with performance debriefing. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1063–9.
16. Edelson DP, Eilevstjønn J, Weidman EK, Retzer E, Hoek TL, Abella BS. Capnography and chest-wall impedance algorithms for ventilation detection during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2010;81:317–22.
17. Maertens VL, De Smedt LE, Lemoyne S, Huybrechts SA, Wouters K, Kalmar AF, et al. Patients with cardiac arrest are ventilated two times faster than guidelines recommend: an observational prehospital study using tracheal pressure measurement. Resuscitation 2013;84:921–6.
18. O’Neill JF, Deakin CD. Do we hyperventilate cardiac arrest patients? Resuscitation 2007;73:82–5.
19. Yannopoulos D, Aufderheide TP, Gabrielli A, Beiser DG, McKnite SH, Pirrallo RG, et al. Clinical and hemodynamic comparison of 15:2 and 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratios for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1444–9.
20. Yannopoulos D, Sigurdsson G, McKnite S, Benditt D, Lurie KG. Reducing ventilation frequency combined with an inspiratory impedance device improves CPR efficiency in swine model of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2004;61:75–82.
21. Aufderheide TP, Sigurdsson G, Pirrallo RG, Yannopoulos D, McKnite S, von Briesen C, et al. Hyperventilation-induced hypotension during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Circulation 2004;109:1960–5.
22. Yannopoulos D, Tang W, Roussos C, Aufderheide TP, Idris AH, Lurie KG. Reducing ventilation frequency during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Respir Care 2005;50:628–35.
23. Aufderheide TP, Lurie KG. Death by hyperventilation: a common and life-threatening problem during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 2004;32:S345–51.
24. Needham DM, Colantuoni E, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dinglas VD, Sevransky JE, Dennison Himmelfarb CR, et al. Lung protective mechanical ventilation and two-year survival in patients with acute lung injury: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012;344e2124.
25. Kolobow T, Moretti MP, Fumagalli R, Mascheroni D, Prato P, Chen V, et al. Severe impairment in lung function induced by high peak airway pressure during mechanical ventilation: an experimental study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;135:312–5.
26. Weiss SJ, Ernst AA, Jones R, Ong M, Filbrun T, Augustin C, et al. Automatic transport ventilator versus bag valve in the EMS setting: a prospective, randomized trial. South Med J 2005;98:970–6.
27. Salas N, Wisor B, Agazio J, Branson R, Austin PN. Comparison of ventilation and cardiac compressions using the impact Model 730 automatic transport ventilator compared to a conventional bag valve with a facemask in a model of adult cardiopulmonary arrest. Resuscitation 2007;74:94–101.
28. Ahn HJ, Kim KD, Jeong WJ, Lee JW, Yoo IS, Ryu S. The adequacy of a conventional mechanical ventilator as a ventilation method during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a manikin study. Korean J Crit Care Med 2015;30:89–94.
29. Lee SM, Kim WH, Ahn HJ, Kim JA, Yang MK, Lee CH, et al. The effects of prolonged inspiratory time during one-lung ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesia 2013;68:908–16.
30. Wright PE, Marini JJ, Bernard GR. In vitro versus in vivo comparison of endotracheal tube airflow resistance. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;140:10–6.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

Manikin model: CPR manikin with airway circuit connected to the flow analyzer. A mechanical chest compression device is installed in the manikin.

Fig. 2

Changes of the flow rate (A), peak airway pressure (B), and mean airway pressure (C) according to each inspiratory times (0.75 s, 1.0 s and 1.5 s). Bonferroni correction for multiplicity, P < 0.05/3.

Table 1

Tidal volume of the simulation manikin according to inspiration time

Tidal volume (ml)

Inspiration time no CPR CPR
0.75s 500.5 (497 – 503) 480 (465.75 – 543)
1.0s 493 (493 – 505) 502 (461.5 – 544)
1.5s 499 (487 – 504) 496.5 (466 – 532)

CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation