Return of Spontaneous Circulation Depends on Cardiac Rhythm During Neonatal Cardiac Arrest in Asphyxiated Newborn Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Pulseless electrical activity (PEA) occurs in asphyxiated newborn piglets and infants. We aimed to examine whether different cardiac rhythms (asystole, bradycardia, PEA) affects the resuscitation outcomes during continuous chest compressions (CC) during sustained inflations (CC+SI). Design: This study is a secondary analysis of four previous randomized controlled animal trials that compared CC+SI with different CC rate (90 or 120/min), SI duration (20 or 60 s), peak inflation pressure (10, 20, or 30 cmH2O), and oxygen concentration (18, 21, or 100%). Setting and Subjects: Sixty-six newborn mixed breed piglets (1–3 days of age, weight 1.7–2.4 kg) were obtained on the day of experimentation from the University Swine Research Technology Center. Interventions: In all four studies, piglets were randomized into intervention or sham. Piglets randomized to “intervention” underwent both hypoxia and asphyxia, whereas, piglets randomized to “sham” received the same surgical protocol, stabilization, and equivalent experimental periods without hypoxia and asphyxia. Measurements: To compare differences in asphyxiation time, time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamics, and survival rate in newborn piglets with asystole, bradycardia or PEA. Main Results: Piglets with PEA (n = 29) and asystole (n = 13) had a significantly longer asphyxiation time and time to ROSC vs. bradycardia (n = 24). Survival rates were similar between all groups. Compared to their baseline, mean arterial pressure and carotid blood flow were significantly lower 4 h after resuscitation in all groups, while being significantly higher in the bradycardia group. Conclusion: This study indicates that cardiac rhythm before resuscitation influences the time to ROSC and hemodynamic recovery after ROSC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".