Sustained Inflation During Chest Compression: A New Technique of Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation That Improves Recovery and Survival in a Pediatric Porcine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chest compression (CC) during sustained inflations (CC+SI) compared with CC with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in asphyxiated pediatric piglets will reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Methods and Results Piglets (20–23 days of age, weighing 6.2–10.2 kg) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to asphyxia. Cardiac arrest was defined as mean arterial blood pressure <25 mm Hg with bradycardia. After cardiac arrest, piglets were randomized to CC+SI (n=12) or CCaV (n=12) or sham (n=8). Sham‐operated animals had no asphyxia. Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded. There were no differences in baseline parameters or the duration and degree of asphyxiation. Median (interquartile range) Time to ROSC was 248 (41–346) seconds compared with 720 (167–720) seconds in the CC+SI group and CCaV group, respectively ( P =0.0292). There was a 100% higher rate of ROSC in the CC+SI group versus CCaV group, with 10 (83%) versus 5 (42%) achieving ROSC ( P =0.089), respectively. Piglets in the CC+SI and CCaV groups received intravenous epinephrine boluses to achieve ROSC (8/12 versus 10/12 P =0.639). There was a significantly higher minute ventilation in the CC+SI group, which was secondary to a 5‐fold increase in the number of inflations per minute and a 1.5‐fold increase in tidal volume. Conclusions CC+SI reduced time to ROSC and improved survival compared with using CCaV. CC+SI allowed passive ventilation of the lung while providing chest compressions. This technique warrants further studies to examine the potential to improve outcomes in pediatric patients with cardiac arrest. Registration URL: https://www.preclinicaltrials.eu ; Unique identifier: PCTE0000152.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".