Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 1, 2025

Ultrasound Based Assessment of Coronary Artery Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Using the Pressure Overload Model in Mice
Published on: April 13, 2015
Comparison of blood flow between two mechanical compression devices using ultrasound: Animal trial
Ji Ho Ryu1, Mun Ki Min1, Dae Sub Lee1
1Department of emergency medicine, Pusan National University Yansgan Hospital, Pusan National Univerisy School of medicine.
Background:
During manual chest compression, maintaining accurate compression depth and consistency is a challenge. Therefore, mechanical chest compression devices(mCCDs) have been increasingly incorporated in clinical practice. Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these devices is critical for extensive clinical application. Hence, this study compared the cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) efficiency of two chest compression devices, LUCAS™ 3(Physio-Control, Redmond, USA) and Easy Pulse (Schiller Medizintechnik GMBH, Feldkirchen, Germany), in terms of blood flow using ultrasonography(USG) in a swine model.
Methods:
A swine model was used to compare two mCCDs, LUCAS™ 3 and Easy Pulse. Cardiac arrest was induced by injecting potassium chloride(KCl) solution in eight male mongrel pigs and the animals were randomly divided into two groups. Mechanical CPR was provided to two groups using LUCAS™ 3(LUCAS™ 3 group) and Easy Pulse(Easy Pulse group). USG was used to measure hemodynamic parameters including femoral peak systolic velocity(PSV) and femoral artery diameters(diameter during systole and diastole). Blood flow rate was calculated by multiplying the PSV and cross-sectional area of the femoral artery during systole. The end-tidal carbon dioxide(EtCo2), chest compression depth was measured. Systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were also measured using an arterial catheter.
Results:
The chest compression depth was much deeper in LUCAS™ 3 group than Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 6.80 cm; Easy Pulse: 3.279 cm, p < 0.001). However, EtCo2 was lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 19.8 mmHg; Easy Pulse: 33.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). The PSV was higher in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 67.6 cm s-1; Easy Pulse: 55.0 cm s-1, p < 0.001), while the systolic(LUCAS™ 3: 1.5 cm; Easy Pulse: 2.0 cm, p < 0.001) and diastolic diameters were larger in the Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 0.4; Easy Pulse: 0.8 cm, p < 0.001). The femoral flood flow rate was also lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 32.55 cm3/s; Easy Pulse: 61.35 cm3/s, p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
The Easy Pulse had a shallower compression depth and slower PSV but had a wider systolic diameter in the femoral artery as compared to that in LUCAS™ 3. Blood flow and EtCo2 were higher in the easy pulse group probably because of the wider diameter. Therefore, an easy pulse may create and maintain more effective intrathoracic pressure.
More Related Videos
09:40Ultrasound Assessment of Flow-Mediated Dilation of the Brachial and Superficial Femoral Arteries in Rats
Published on: November 3, 2016
09:24O-Ring Aortic Banding Versus Traditional Transverse Aortic Constriction for Modeling Pressure Overload-Induced Cardiac Hypertrophy
Published on: October 6, 2022