BACKGROUND: Our group previously reported that right-sided vagus nerve stimulation (RVNS) significantly improved outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in a rat model of cardiac arrest (CA). However, whether left-sided vagus nerve stimulation (LVNS) could achieve the same effect as RVNS in CPR outcomes remains unknown.
METHODS: A rat model of CA was established using modified percutaneous epicardial electrical stimulation to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF). Rats were treated with LVNS or RVNS for 30 minutes before the induction of VF. All animals were observed closely within 72 hours after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and their health and behavior were evaluated every 24 hours.
RESULTS: Compared with those in the RVNS group, the hemodynamic measurements in the LVNS group decreased more notably. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) decreased the serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and the arrhythmia score, and attenuated inflammatory infiltration in myocardial tissue after ROSC, regardless of the side of stimulation, compared with findings in the CPR group. Both LVNS and RVNS ameliorated myocardial function and increased the expression of α-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in the myocardium after ROSC. Moreover, a clear improvement in 72-hour survival was shown with VNS pre-treatment, with no significant difference in efficacy when comparing the laterality of stimulation.
CONCLUSIONS: LVNS may have similar effects as RVNS on improving outcomes after CPR.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a critical condition that is a concern to healthcare workers. Comparative studies on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) technologies have shown that ECPR is superior to CCPR. However, there is a lack of studies that compare the protective effects of these two resuscitative methods on organs. Therefore, we aim to perform experiments in swine models of ventricular fibrillation-induced CA to study whether the early application of ECPR has advantages over CCPR in the lung injury and to explore the protective mechanism of ECPR on the post-resuscitation pulmonary injury.
METHODS: Sixteen male swine were randomized to CCPR (CCPR; n=8; CCPR alone) and ECPR (ECPR; n=8; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with CCPR) groups, with the restoration of spontaneous circulation at 6 hours as an endpoint.
RESULTS: For the two groups, the survival rates between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05), the blood and lung biomarkers were statistically significant (P<0.05), and the extravascular lung water and pulmonary vascular permeability index were statistically significant (P<0.01). Compared with the ECPR group, electron microscopy revealed mostly vacuolated intracellular alveolar type II lamellar bodies and a fuzzy lamellar structure with widening and blurring of the blood-gas barrier in the CCPR group.
CONCLUSIONS: ECPR may have pulmonary protective effects, possibly related to the regulation of alveolar surface-active proteins and mitigated oxidative stress response post-resuscitation.