MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Enhanced Cerebral Blood Flow and Hemodynamic Status with an Alternative Left Ventricle Chest Compression Position during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Swine

2022· article· en· W4225397349 on OpenAlexaff
Rory A. Marshall, Jude S. Morton, Adam M.S. Luchkanych, Yehia El Karsh, Zeyad El Karsh, Cameron J. Morse, Katie Y. Turnbull, Nici N. Schaefer, Corey R. Tomczak, Brian Grunau, T. Dylan Olver

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineVentricleHemodynamicsCardiologyInternal medicineBlood flowBlood pressureResuscitationCerebral blood flowAnesthesiaMean arterial pressureTranscranial DopplerHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The standard chest compression (SCC) position for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the centre of the chest and typically central to the aortic root. An alternative left ventricle chest compression (LVCC) position may facilitate superior global blood flow. We tested the hypothesis that, consistent with improved ETCO 2 (indicative of cardiac output) and blood pressure (BP), LVCC would promote greater cerebral blood flow (CBF) than SCC. Methods Female pigs (N=32; 35±2kg) were rotated systematically to receive either SCC (n=14) or LVCC (n=18). Transthoracic echocardiography was used to identify and externally mark: (1) the SCC position, the midline at the level of the aortic route, or (2) the LVCC position, the midpoint of the left ventricle. After 2 minutes of untreated asphyxiated cardiac arrest (CA), swine were treated with three 2‐minute cycles of mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS III). ETCO 2 (in‐line sampling), BP (arterial catheter line), and CBF velocity (CBF v, transcranial Doppler, primary outcome) were measured during the pre‐CA, untreated‐CA, and CPR‐treated phases. Between‐group outcomes were compared using a mixed model ANOVA with significant differences considered at P<0.05 and data are presented as mean±standard deviation. Results Pre‐ and untreated‐CA ETCO 2 , BP and CBF v were similar between the SCC and LVCC groups (P>0.100). During CPR, ETCO 2 (36±6 mmHg versus 24±10 mmHg; P<0.001), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP; 49±9 mmHg versus 37±9 mmHg; P=0.002), and Mean CBF v (11±5 cm/s versus 5±2 cm/s; P<0.001) were significantly higher in the LVCC, versus SCC, group. Conclusion In comparison to SCC,LVCC resulted in higher ETCO 2 , MAP, and Mean CBF v values throughout CPR in a swine model of CA. New and Noteworthy We provide novel evidence that compared with mechanical compressions performed over the centre of the chest, compressions performed over the left ventricle promote greater CBF during BLS CPR. Clinical validation of these results may improve survival rates and attenuate neurological deficits following CA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→