Abstract 11968: Uninterrupted Chest Compressions does not Improve Hemodynamics During and After Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Asphyxiated Newborn Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Since asphyxia is the most common cause of a need for newborn cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) the primary focus of CPR should be effective ventilation. Any intervention that interferes with ventilation should be introduced with caution. Thus, in newborn CPR it is recommended that chest compressions (CC) and ventilation be synchronized with a pause after every 3rd CC to deliver one effective ventilation, i.e. a CC to ventilation (C:V) ratio of 3:1. However, this recommendation is based on physiological plausibility, not scientific evidence. In adult CPR uninterrupted CC has been shown to improve hemodynamics including coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) and outcomes. Hypothesis: In a newborn piglet model, we hypothesized that continuous CC and asynchronous ventilation (CCaV) would improve CPR hemodynamics and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) vs. 3:1 C:V CPR. Methods: Thirty-two intubated piglets (1-3d old) were instrumented with a catheter in the left common carotid artery, asphyxiated until cardiac arrest and randomized to 3:1 C:V CPR or CCaV (n=16 in each group). In both groups, manual CC were performed and a metronome was used to help achieve 120 events (90 CC and 30 assisted ventilations)min-1. CPR characteristics and time to ROSC were compared between groups with the Mann-Whitney U test. Lactate was determined from homogenized left ventricle (LV) tissue collected 4 h after ROSC. Results: At cardiac arrest, median (IQR) arterial pH was 6.6 (6.5-6.9), paCO2 78 (48-97) mmHg and lactate 18 (15-19) mmol/L with no differences between groups. Characteristics of CPR and post-CPR recovery are presented in Table 1. Conclusions: Despite a modestly higher number of CCmin-1 CCaV did not improve DBP, a proxy for CPP during CPR, or ROSC. Mean arterial blood pressure after ROSC was slightly lower and LV lactate higher following CCaV vs. 3:1 C:V CPR. The results confirm the assumption that extrapolating evidence from adults to newborns is inappropriate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".