Assessment of optimal chest compression depth during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised controlled animal trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aimed to examine the optimal anterior-posterior depth which will reduce the time to return of spontaneous circulation and improve survival during chest compressions. Asphyxiated neonatal piglets receiving chest compression resuscitated with a 40% anterior-posterior chest depth compared with 33%, 25% or 12.5% will have reduced time to return of spontaneous circulation and improved survival. METHODS: Newborn piglets (n=8 per group) were anaesthetised, intubated, instrumented and exposed to 45 min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia and cardiac arrest. Piglets were randomly allocated to four intervention groups ('anterior-posterior 12.5% depth', 'anterior-posterior 25% depth', 'anterior-posterior 33% depth' or 'anterior-posterior 40% depth'). Chest compressions were performed using an automated chest compression machine with a rate of 90 per minute. Haemodynamic and respiratory parameters, applied compression force, and chest compression depth were continuously measured. RESULTS: The median (IQR) time to return of spontaneous circulation was 600 (600-600) s, 135 (90-589) s, 85 (71-158)* s and 116 (63-173)* s for the 12.5%, 25%, 33% and 40% depth groups, respectively (*p<0.001 vs 12.5%). The number of piglets that achieved return of spontaneous circulation was 0 (0%), 6 (75%), 7 (88%) and 7 (88%) in the 12.5%, 25%, 33% and 40% anterior-posterior depth groups, respectively. Arterial blood pressure, central venous pressure, carotid blood flow, applied compression force, tidal volume and minute ventilation increased with greater anterior-posterior chest depth during chest compression. CONCLUSIONS: Time to return of spontaneous circulation and survival were similar between 25%, 33% and 40% anterior-posterior depths, while 12.5% anterior-posterior depth did not result in return of spontaneous circulation or survival. Haemodynamic and respiratory parameters improved with increasing anterior-posterior depth, suggesting improved organ perfusion and oxygen delivery with 33%-40% anterior-posterior depth. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PTCE0000193.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".