Pulseless electrical activity: a misdiagnosed entity during asphyxia in newborn infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2015 neonatal resuscitation guidelines added ECG as a recommended method of assessment of an infant's heart rate (HR) when determining the need for resuscitation at birth. However, a recent case report raised concerns about this technique in the delivery room. OBJECTIVES: To compare accuracy of ECG with auscultation to assess asystole in asphyxiated piglets. METHODS: Neonatal piglets had the right common carotid artery exposed and enclosed with a real-time ultrasonic flow probe and HR was continuously measured and recorded using ECG. This set-up allowed simultaneous monitoring of HR via ECG and carotid blood flow (CBF). The piglets were exposed to 30 min normocapnic alveolar hypoxia followed by asphyxia until asystole, achieved by disconnecting the ventilator and clamping the endotracheal tube. Asystole was defined as zero carotid blood flow and was compared with ECG traces and auscultation for heart sounds using a neonatal/infant stethoscope. RESULTS: Overall, 54 piglets were studied with a median (IQR) duration of asphyxia of 325 (200-491) s. In 14 (26%) piglets, CBF, ECG and auscultation identified asystole. In 23 (43%) piglets, we observed no CBF and no audible heart sounds, while ECG displayed an HR ranging from 15 to 80/min. Sixteen (30%) piglets remained bradycardic (defined as HR of <100/min) after 10 min of asphyxia, identified by CBF, ECG and auscultation. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of the potential inaccuracy of ECG assessment during asphyxia in newborn infants and should rather rely on assessment using a combination of auscultation, palpation, pulse oximetry and ECG.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".