This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John Michael Criley, MD
Torrance, Calif

Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(11):1236.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Tucker et al,¹ in their article entitled "Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Historical Perspectives, Physiology, and Future Directions" in the October 10,1994, issue of the Archives, reviewed the two physiologic theories that have been proposed to explain the mechanisms of blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): the direct cardiac compression and thoracic pump models. They concluded that both mechanisms "... are not necessarily mutually exclusive" and that "... both mechanisms may be operant,"¹ sentiments with which my coworkers and I agree.

However, we take strong issue with the authors' concluding statement in the "Thoracic Pump Model" section: "... the thoracic pump model provides no mechanism at all for blood flow to the coronary circulation."1 This claim is later contradicted by their own text in the "Vest CPR" section, in which they cite "... improved coronary perfusion and survival" and "... coronary flow of 40% to 60% of normal" in dogs and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?