Chest Compressions and Ventilation in Delivery Room Resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of chest compressions (CCs) is to generate blood flow to vital organs in a state in which the myocardium is unable to produce forward blood flow by internal pump mechanisms. In newborn infants requiring CCs in the delivery room, the most frequent cause of myocardial compromise is energy depletion due to hypoxia. Hypoxemia and the accompanying hypercarbia and metabolic acidosis (ie, asphyxia) causes systemic vasodilation, further compromising perfusion pressure. Hence, in neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the focus is on both reversing hypoxia and enhancing coronary and systemic perfusion pressure. There are limited clinical data to support a recommendation for how CC and ventilation should be optimized for this purpose in the newborn. However, studies in animal models and manikins suggest that using a compression-to-ventilation ratio (C:V) of 3:1 and delivering compressions during a pause in ventilation results in improved ventilation and reversal of hypoxia. Use of the 3:1 ratio, compared with higher C:V ratios, also results in more effective CC during prolonged CPR. A C:V ratio of 3:1 is perceived as more exhausting to perform than higher ratios, and a high CC rate, which may be beneficial, cannot be achieved with pauses in CCs for the delivery of ventilation. Continuous CCs and asynchronous ventilation have been shown to have improved outcomes in adults and older children after cardiac arrest, and current evidence suggests that it is as good as a 3:1 C:V ratio in neonatal resuscitation. Further studies are needed and should focus on the optimal resuscitative approach in neonatal CPR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".