Abstract 165: 21% Or 100% Oxygen During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Asphyxiated Pediatric Piglets - A Randomized Controlled Animal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current pediatric resuscitation guidelines recommend 100% oxygen (O 2 ) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), however the most effective O 2 concentration for pediatric patients remains unknown. Aim: To determine if 21%O 2 during CPR with either chest compression (CC) during sustained inflation (SI) (CC+SI) or continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) will reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to 100%O 2 in pediatric piglets with asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest. Methods: 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 mmHg with bradycardia. After cardiac arrest, piglets were randomized to CC+SI or CCaV with either 21% or 100%O 2 or sham. Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded. Results: There were no differences in baseline parameters or the duration and degree of asphyxiation. Median (interquartile range) time to ROSC was 107 (90-440) and 140 (105-200) sec with CC+SI 21% and 100%O 2 and 600 (50-600) and 600 (95-600)sec with CCaV 21% and 100%O 2 (p=0.27). Overall, 6 (86%) and 6 (86%) with CC+SI 21% and 100%O 2 and 3 (43%) and 3 (43%) achieved ROSC with CCaV 21% and 100%O 2 (p=0.13). Conclusions: In pediatric piglets resuscitated with 21% oxygen compared to 100% oxygen, using either CCaV or CC+SI had similar time to ROSC and survival. CPR using CC+SI had shorter time to ROSC and higher survival compared to CCaV. Clinical studies comparing 21% with 100%O 2 during pediatric CPR are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".