MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966459252 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003898

Ventilation Rates and Pediatric In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes*

2019· article· en· W2966459252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert M. Sutton, Ron Reeder, William Landis, Kathleen L. Meert, Andrew R. Yates, Ryan W. Morgan, John Berger, Christopher J. L. Newth, Joseph A. Carcillo, Patrick S. McQuillen, Rick Harrison, Frank W. Moler, Murray M. Pollack, Todd C. Carpenter, Daniel A. Notterman, Richard Holubkov, Jay B. Dean, Vinay Nadkarni, Robert A. Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChildren's Hospital of PittsburghPhilips Research AmericasDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaChildren's Hospital of MichiganPhysicians Committee for Responsible MedicineNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSt. Jude MedicalZOLL Medical CorporationChildren's National HospitalUniversity of PennsylvaniaWayne State UniversityPfizerNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of PittsburghChildren's Hospital Los AngelesNationwide Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaNational Institutes of HealthOhio State UniversityMallinckrodt PharmaceuticalsAmerican Heart AssociationEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCardiopulmonary resuscitationVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaBlood pressureIntensive careMechanical ventilationArterial bloodResuscitationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to associate ventilation rates during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with 1) arterial blood pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 2) survival outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter observational study. SETTING: Pediatric and pediatric cardiac ICUs of the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network. PATIENTS: Intubated children (≥ 37 wk gestation and < 19 yr old) who received at least 1 minute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arterial blood pressure and ventilation rate (breaths/min) were manually extracted from arterial line and capnogram waveforms. Guideline rate was defined as 10 ± 2 breaths/min; high ventilation rate as greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min in children less than 1 year old, and greater than or equal to 25 breaths/min in older children. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Regression models using Firth penalized likelihood assessed the association between ventilation rates and outcomes. Ventilation rates were available for 52 events (47 patients). More than half of patients (30/47; 64%) were less than 1 year old. Eighteen patients (38%) survived to discharge. Median event-level average ventilation rate was 29.8 breaths/min (interquartile range, 23.8-35.7). No event-level average ventilation rate was within guidelines; 30 events (58%) had high ventilation rates. The only significant association between ventilation rate and arterial blood pressure occurred in children 1 year old or older and was present for systolic blood pressure only (-17.8 mm Hg/10 breaths/min; 95% CI, -27.6 to -8.1; p < 0.01). High ventilation rates were associated with a higher odds of survival to discharge (odds ratio, 4.73; p = 0.029). This association was stable after individually controlling for location (adjusted odds ratio, 5.97; p = 0.022), initial rhythm (adjusted odds ratio, 3.87; p = 0.066), and time of day (adjusted odds ratio, 4.12; p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort, ventilation rates exceeding guidelines were common. Among the range of rates delivered, higher rates were associated with improved survival to hospital discharge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207