DURATION OF SUSTAINED INFLATION DURING SUSTAINED INFLATION AND CHEST COMPRESSION IN A PORCINE MODEL OF ASPHYXIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Current resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 C:V ratio, however the most effective C:V ratio in newborns remains controversial. We recently demonstrate that combining chest compressions (CC) with a sustained inflation (SI) (=CC+SI) significantly improves return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in asphyxiated newborn piglets compared to 3:1 C:V resuscitation. However, the optimal length of SI during CC+SI is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine if a 60sec SI compared to a 20sec SI or 3:1 C:V will reduce will reduces ROSC during resuscitation in asphyxiated newborn piglets. DESIGN/METHODS Cardiac arrest with achieved was induced in newborn piglets and then randomized to receive either “3:1 C:V ratio, SI+CC-20sec” or “SS+CC-60sec”. Piglets randomized to “SI+CC+20sec” or “SI+CC+60sec” received 90/min CC during a SI of 20sec or 60sec. Piglets randomized to 3:1 C:V received 90/min CC and 30 inflations/min. The default settings for airway pressures were peak inflation pressure of 30 cm H2O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 6 cm H2O. The primary outcome was duration of CC to achieve ROSC. RESULTS Eight piglets were randomized to each group; the mean (SD) age and weight was similar between groups. Median (IQR) ROSC was significantly shorter in the SI+CC-20sec and SI+CC-60sec group with 96 (68–168) sec and 78 (60–91) sec compared to the 3:1 C:V group with 235 (182–347)sec (p=0.002). 5/8 in the SI+CC-60sec group, 7/8 in the SI+CC-20sec and 8/8 in the 3:1 C:V group received epinephrine (p=0.82). CONCLUSION Lengths of SI during CC+SI does not affect ROSC, however CC+SI compared to 3:1 C:V does improve ROSC in newborn piglets.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".