1: Sustained Inflation and Chest Compression versus 3:1 Chest Compression: Ventilation Ratio During Neonatal CPR – A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 Compression:Ventilation (C:V) ratio, however the most effective C:V ratio in newborns remains controversial. We recently demonstrate that if chest compressions (CC) are superimposed by sustained inflations (SI) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and mortality are improved in asphyxiated newborn piglets when compared to standard coordinated 3:1 resuscitation. However, this has not been studied in newborns. To determine if CC superimposed with SI impacts ROSC in infants <33 weeks with bradycardia or asystole compared to coordinated 3:1 C:V resuscitation. In a pilot study, infants born <33 weeks gestational age with an heart rate <60/min or asystole were randomized to receive either “3:1 C:V” or “SS+CC”. Infants randomized to 3:1 received coordinated CC and ventilation according to the current resuscitation guidelines. Infants randomized to “SI+CC” received uninterrupted CC at a rate of 90/min superimposed by a SI of 30 sec. The default settings for airway pressures were peak inflation pressure of 24 cm H2O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 6 cm H2O. The primary outcome was duration of CC to achieve ROSC. Deferral of consent was approved by the institutional ethics committee. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02083705. Five infants were randomized to each group; the mean (range) gestational age was 25 (24–27) weeks vs. 26 (23–28) weeks in the in the SI+CC and 3:1 group (P=0.433), respectively. Mean (SD) birth weight in the SI+CC group was 797 (208) g vs. 808 (182) g in the 3:1 group, (P=0.465) respectively. Mean (SD) ROSC was significantly decreased in the SI+CC group with 31 (8) sec vs. 138 (72) sec in the 3:1 group (P=0.011). One infant in each group died and only one infant in the 3:1 group received epinephrine. One infant in the SI+CC group and three in the 3:1 had intracranial hemorrhage grade 3 or greater. Three infants in the SI+CC group had necrotizing enterocolitis vs. one infant in the 3:1 group (P=0.197). Preterm infants <33 weeks had significant shorter ROSC when CC were superimposed by SI compared to using 3:1.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".