MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2804186841 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.071

USING CHEST COMPRESSIONS WITH ASYNCHRONOUS VENTILATION AT VARIOUS CHEST COMPRESSION RATES (90, 100, 120/MIN) – A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED ANIMAL TRIAL

2018· article· en· W2804186841 on OpenAlexaff
Sparsh Patel, Po‐Yin Cheung, Tze-Fun Lee, Matteo Pasquin, Megan O’Reilly, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaAsphyxiaCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationNeonatal resuscitationResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND The current Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines recommends that newborns who require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in settings (e.g., prehospital, Emergency department, or paediatric intensive care unit, etc.) should receive continuous chest compressions with asynchronous ventilations (CCaV) if an advanced airway is in place. However, this has never been examined in a newborn model of neonatal asphyxia. OBJECTIVES To determine if CCaV at rates of 90/min or 120/min compared to current standard of 100/min will reduce the time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in a porcine model of neonatal resuscitation. DESIGN/METHODS Term newborn piglets were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 40-min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia, which was achieved by clamping the endotracheal tube until asystole. Piglets were randomized into 3 CCaV groups: chest compression (CC) at a rate of 90/min (CCaV 90,n=7), of 100/min (CCaV 100,n=7), of 120/min (CCaV 120,n=7), or sham-operated group. A two-step randomization process with sequentially numbered, sealed brown envelope was used to reduce selection bias. After surgical instrumentation and stabilization an envelope containing the allocation “sham” or “intervention” was opened (step one). The sham-operated group had the same surgical protocol, stabilization, and equivalent experimental periods without hypoxia and asphyxia. Only piglets randomized to “intervention” underwent hypoxia and asphyxia. Once the criteria for CPR were met, a second envelope containing the group allocations was opened (step two). Cardiac function, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. RESULTS The mean (±SD) duration of asphyxia was similar between the groups with 260 (±133)sec, 336 (±217)sec, and 231 (±174)sec for CCav 90, CCaV 100, and CCaV 120, respectively (p=1.000; oneway ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test). The mean (SD) time to ROSC was also similar between groups 342 (±345)sec, 312 (±316)sec, and 309 (±287)sec for CCav 90, CCaV 100, and CCaV 120, respectively (p=1.000; oneway ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test). Overall, 5/7 in the CCaV 90, 5/7 in CCaV 100, and 5/7 in the CCaV 120 survived. CONCLUSION There was no significant difference in time to ROSC for either chest compression technique during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a porcine model of neonatal asphyxia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques→French-language works237,207→