ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine whether ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (ULTVV) applied during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compared with standard ventilation (intermittent positive pressure ventilation, IPPV) can reduce pulmonary end-organ damage in the post-resuscitation period.MethodsA prospective, randomized trial was conducted using a porcine model (n = 45). The animals were divided into three groups: IPPV, ULTVV, and a sham control group. Juvenile male pigs underwent CPR after inducing ventricular fibrillation and received the designated ventilation intervention [IPPV: tidal volume 6-8 ml per kilogram body weight (ml/kg BW), respiratory rate 10/min, FiO2 1.0; ULTVV: tidal volume 2-3 ml/kg BW, respiratory rate 50/min, FiO2 1.0]. A 20-h observation period followed if return of spontaneous circulation was achieved. Histopathological examination using the diffuse alveolar damage scoring system was performed on postmortem lung tissue samples. Arterial and venous blood gas analyses and ventilation/perfusion measurements via multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) were repeatedly recorded during the experiment.ResultsOut of the 45 experiments conducted, 28 animals were excluded based on predefined criteria. Histopathological analysis showed no significant differences in lung damage between the ULTVV and IPPV groups. ULTVV demonstrated adequate oxygenation and decarboxylation. MIGET measurements during and after resuscitation revealed no significant differences between the intervention groups.ConclusionIn the short-term follow-up phase, ULTVV demonstrated similar histopathological changes and functional pulmonary parameters compared to standard ventilation. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term effects and clinical implications of ULTVV in resuscitation settings. The current state of research regarding the optimal ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is incomplete. This study investigated the impact of ultra-low tidal volume ventilation during resuscitation compared to standard ventilation on lung end-organ damage. Histopathologically and functionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in the short-term follow-up.
