MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18435: ETCO2 Alone is Inadequate to Verify CPR Quality

2015· article· en· W2805144026 on OpenAlexaff
Chengcheng Hu, Daniel W. Spaite, Tyler F. Vadeboncoeur, Cameron Hypes, Ryan A. Murphy, Annemarie Silver, Bentley J. Bobrow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsBentley (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationCapnographyAnesthesiaRepeated measures designVentilation (architecture)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous studies have described modest correlation between end-tidal CO 2 (ETCO 2 ) and CPR quality during resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients, but it is unclear whether ETCO 2 alone can indicate CPR quality. The present study investigated whether ETCO 2 adequately identifies the quality of CPR provided during out-of-hospital cardiac resuscitation. Methods: ETCO 2 was monitored with side-stream CO 2 (Philips/Respironics) and CPR quality measured with an accelerometer-based system (E Series, ZOLL Medical) during the treatment of consecutive adult OHCA patients with presumed cardiac etiology by 2 EMS agencies in the Arizona SHARE QI Program between 10/08-06/13. Minute-by-minute ETCO 2 and CPR quality were extracted. ETCO 2 values were log transformation to achieve approximate normality. Linear mixed effect models were fitted to use (transformed) ETCO 2 level to predict four CPR variables: chest compression (CC) depth, CC rate, CC release velocity (CCRV), and ventilation rate (VR). A random intercept for each case was included and a spatial power covariance structure assumed for measurements over time. Results: 230 subjects (median age 69 yrs, 69% male) with 1581 minutes of data were studied. Transformed ETCO 2 was significant for CC depth (p< 0.0001), CCRV (p=0.003) and VR (p<0.0001), but only explained 3.7%, 2.7%, and 10.0% of the total variance for these variables, respectively. Transformed ETCO 2 was not a significant predictor for CC rate (p=0.89). The Figure illustrates the overlap in CC depth over quartiles of ETCO 2 , demonstrating that any specific ETCO 2 level could be found over a wide range of CC depths. Conclusion: In this secondary analysis, ETCO 2 was not an independent indicator of CC rate but was a weak predictor for CC depth, CCRV and VR. These findings suggest that ETCO 2 may be not be an adequate substitute for CPR quality monitoring. Future studies should investigate how ETCO 2 and CPR quality monitoring can be used in conjunction to optimize CPR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→