Fast or Slow Rescue Ventilations: A Predictive Model of Gastric Inflation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rescue ventilations are given during respiratory and cardiac arrest. Tidal volume must assure oxygen delivery; however, excessive pressure applied to an unprotected airway can cause gastric inflation, regurgitation, and pulmonary aspiration. The optimal technique provides mouth pressure and breath duration that minimize gastric inflation. It remains unclear if breath delivery should be fast or slow, and how inflation time affects the division of gas flow between the lungs and esophagus. METHODS: A physiological model was used to predict and compare rates of gastric inflation and to determine ideal ventilation duration. Gas flow equations were based on standard pulmonary physiology. Gastric inflation was assumed to occur whenever mouth pressure exceeded lower esophageal sphincter pressure. Mouth pressure profiles that approximated mouth-to-mouth ventilation and bag-valve-mask ventilation were investigated. Target tidal volumes were set to 0.6 and 1.0 L. Compliance and airway resistance were varied. RESULTS: O to achieve the target lung volume, which thus promotes gastric inflation. Slow breaths longer than 1 s permitted lower mouth pressures but increased time over which airway pressure exceeded lower esophageal sphincter pressure. The gastric volume increased with breath durations that exceeded 1 s for both mouth pressure profiles. Breath duration of ∼1.0 s caused the least gastric inflation in most scenarios. Very low esophageal sphincter pressure favored a shift toward 0.5 s. High resistance and low compliance each increased gastric inflation and altered ideal breath times. CONCLUSIONS: The model illustrated a general theory of optimal rescue ventilation. Breath duration with an unprotected airway should be 1 s to minimize gastric inflation. Short pressure-driven and long duration-driven gastric inflation regimens provide a unifying explanation for results in past studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".