Change in tidal volume during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in newborn piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of inflations during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is to deliver an adequate tidal volume (VT) to facilitate gas exchange. However, no study has examined VT delivery during chest compression (CC) in detail to understand the effect of CC on lung aeration. The aim of the study was to examine VT changes during CC and their effect on lung aeration. METHODS: Piglets were anaesthetised, instrumented and intubated with zero leak. They were then randomly assigned to CPR using either 3:1 compression:ventilation ratio (C:V) (n=6), continuous CC with asynchronous ventilations (CCaV) (90 CC/min with 30/min asynchronous ventilations) (n=6) or continuous CC superimposed with 30 s sustained inflations (CC+SI) with a CC rate of 120/min (n=5). A respiratory function monitor (NM3, Respironics, Philips, Andover, Massachusetts, USA) was used to continuously measure inspiration tidal volume (VTi) and expirational tidal volume (VTe). ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test were used to compare variables of all three groups. RESULTS: During the inflation in the 3:1 C:V group, the mean (SD) VTi and VTe was 23.5 (5.3) mL/kg and 19.4 (2.7) mL/kg (p=0.16), respectively. During the CC, we observed a significant VT loss in the 3:1 group with VTi and VTe being 4.1 (1.2) mL/kg and 11.1 (3.3) mL/kg (p=0.007), respectively. In the CCaV group, VTe was higher compared with VTi, but this was not significant. In the CC+SI group, a VT gain during each CC with VTi and VTe of 16.3 (3.2) mL/kg and 14 (3) mL/kg (p=0.21), respectively, was observed. CONCLUSIONS: VT delivery is improved using CC+SI compared with 3:1 C:V. This improvement in VT delivery may lead to better alveolar oxygen delivery and lung aeration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".