Abstract 132: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Chest Compressions During Sustained Inflations in a Pediatric Porcine Model - A Randomized Control Animal Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pediatric resuscitation guidelines recommend continuous chest compressions (CC) with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) once an airway has been secured. However, the optimal CC technique remains unknown. Aim: To determine if CCs during sustained inflations (SI) improves return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) of asphyxiated pediatric piglets compared to CCaV. Intervention and measurements: Piglets (age 20-23 days) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and asphyxiated. Protocolized resuscitation was initiated when mean arterial blood pressure was <25mmHg with bradycardia. Piglets (n=12/group) were randomized to receive CCaV resuscitation (CCaV group) according to the current resuscitation guidelines, or CC during SI (CC+SI group). The CC+SI group received a SI with a peak inflating pressure of 25 cmH 2 O for 30sec, CCs were provided at a rate of 100/min, and SI was interrupted after 30 sec for one second before a further 30sec SI was provided. CC and SI were continued until ROSC. Respiratory parameters, carotid blood flow, systemic artery pressures, and cerebral oxygenation were measured. Main results: Median (IQR) time to ROSC was significantly decreased in the CC+SI group compared to CCaV with 248 (41-346)sec vs. 720 (167-720)sec (p=0.049), respectively. CC+SI had a 100% higher rate of ROSC compared to CCaV with 10(83%) vs. 5(42%) (p=0.089), respectively. Piglets in the CC+SI group received a median (IQR) 3.5 (0-5.8) intravenous epinephrine boluses compared to 8.0 (1.8-11) in the CCaV group (p=0.123). Conclusions: Combining CC and SI significantly improved time to ROSC and survival in asphyxiated pediatric piglets when compared to the current standard of CCs with CCaV during pediatric 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".