Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How well different dog CPR breathing methods work during resuscitation
By Hopper, Kate et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2018·Department of Veterinary Surgical and Radiological Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Efficacy of Manual Ventilation Techniques During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of research dogs underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) using different ventilation methods, including a tube, a face mask, and mouth-to-nose breathing. The study found that using a tube for ventilation was the most effective, as it provided better oxygen levels compared to the other methods. While face mask and mouth-to-nose techniques were reasonable alternatives when a tube wasn't available, they were less effective and sometimes caused issues like gas leakage and regurgitation. The findings suggest that if your dog needs CPR, using a tube is best, but if that's not possible, face mask or mouth-to-nose methods can still help.
People also search for: dog CPR techniques · mouth-to-nose breathing for dogs · best ventilation method for dog CPR
Abstract
The efficacy of ventilation of dogs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a tight fitting face mask or mouth-to-nose rescue breathing has not been evaluated. Twenty-four purpose bred research dogs: Dogs were randomized to be ventilated by cuffed orotracheal tube, tight fitting face mask, mouth-to-nose breathing or compressions only during CPR (= 6 in all groups). Orotracheal tube and face mask ventilation was performed on room air. Chest compressions were performed during the experimental procedure. Arterial blood gases were performed prior to euthanasia (baseline), at 3 min and at 6 min of CPR. PaOand PaCOwere compared for each time point and each group. There was no difference in PaOor PaCObetween groups at baseline. At 6 min all groups had a significantly higher PaCO(≤ 0.005) and the facemask and compression only groups had a significantly lower PaO(< 0.02) when compared to the orotracheal tube group. There was no difference between the PaOof the mouth-to-nose group compared to the orotracheal tube group at 3 or 6 min. Gastric distension, regurgitation, gas leakage around the mouth, and ineffective breaths were all noted in both the face mask and mouth-to-nose group. The results of this study supports that orotracheal intubation is the preferred technique for ventilation during CPR in dogs. When orotracheal intubation is not possible, face mask ventilation or mouth-to-nose ventilation would be reasonable alternatives. When oxygen supplementation is available, face mask ventilation is likely to be superior. Appropriate training for both face mask and mouth-to-nose ventilation techniques is recommended.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30327772/