Exhaled CO2 Parameters as a Tool to Assess Ventilation-Perfusion Mismatching during Neonatal Resuscitation in a Swine Model of Neonatal Asphyxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-tidal CO2 (ETCO2), partial pressure of exhaled CO2 (PECO2), and volume of expired CO2 (VCO2) can be continuously monitored non-invasively to reflect pulmonary ventilation and perfusion status. Although ETCO2 ≥14 mmHg has been shown to be associated with return of an adequate heart rate in neonatal resuscitation and quantifying the PECO2 has the potential to serve as an indicator of resuscitation quality, there is little information regarding capnometric measurement of PECO2 and ETCO2 in detecting return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survivability in asphyxiated neonates receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: Seventeen newborn piglets were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 45-minute normocapnic hypoxia followed by apnea to induce asphyxia. Protocolized resuscitation was initiated when heart rate decreased to 25% of baseline. Respiratory and hemodynamic parameters including ETCO2, PECO2, VCO2, heart rate, cardiac output, and carotid artery flow were continuously measured and analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences in respiratory and hemodynamic parameters between surviving and non-surviving piglets prior to CPR. Surviving piglets had significantly higher ETCO2, PECO2, VCO2, cardiac index, and carotid artery flow values during CPR compared to non-surviving piglets. CONCLUSION: Surviving piglets had significantly better respiratory and hemodynamic parameters during resuscitation compared to non-surviving piglets. In addition to optimizing resuscitation efforts, capnometry can assist by predicting outcomes of newborns requiring chest compressions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".