Chest compression during sustained inflation versus 3:1 chest compression:ventilation ratio during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 compression:ventilation (C:V) ratio. Recently, animal studies reported that continuous chest compressions (CC) during a sustained inflation (SI) significantly improved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The approach of CC during SI (CC+SI) has not been examined in the delivery room during neonatal resuscitation. HYPOTHESIS: It is a feasibility study to compare CC+SI versus 3:1 C:V ratio during neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room. We hypothesised that during neonatal resuscitation, CC+SI will reduce the time to ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants <33 weeks of gestation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised feasibility trial. METHOD: Once CC was indicated all eligible infants were immediately and randomly allocated to either CC+SI group or 3:1 C:V group. A sequentially numbered, brown, sealed envelope contained a folded card box with the treatment allocation was opened by the clinical team at the start of CC. STUDY INTERVENTIONS: Infants in the CC+SI group received CC at a rate of 90/min during an SI with a duration of 20 s (CC+SI). After 20 s, the SI was interrupted for 1 s and the next SI was started for another 20 s until ROSC. Infants in the '3:1 group' received CC using 3:1 C:V ratio until ROSC. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Overall the mean (SD) time to ROSC was significantly shorter in the CC+SI group with 31 (9) s compared with 138 (72) s in the 3:1 C:V group (p=0.011). CONCLUSION: CC+SI is feasible in the delivery room. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02083705, pre-results.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".