Continuous chest compression during sustained inflation versus continuous compression with asynchronized ventilation in an infantile porcine model of severe bradycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recently, the American Heart Association released a statement calling for research examining the appropriate age to transition from the neonatal to pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation approach to resuscitation. Aim: To compare neonatal and pediatric resuscitation approach by using either continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) or continuous chest compression superimposed with sustained inflation (CC + SI) during infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We hypothesized that CC + SI compared to CCaV would reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in infantile piglets with asphyxia-induced bradycardic cardiac arrest. Methods: Twenty infantile piglets (5-10 days old) were anesthetized and asphyxiated by clamping the endotracheal tube. Piglets were randomized to CC + SI or CCaV for resuscitation (n = 10/group). Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, intrathoracic pressure and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Main results: The median (IQR) time to ROSC with CC + SI compared to CCaV was 179 (104-447) vs 660 (189-660), p = 0.05. The number of piglets achieving ROSC with CC + SI and CCaV were 8/10 and 6/10, p = 0.628. Piglets resuscitated with CC + SI required less epinephrine compared to CCaV (p = 0.039). CC + SI increased the intrathoracic pressure throughout resuscitation (p = 0.025) and increased minute ventilation (p < 0.001), compared to CCaV. There was no difference in hemodynamic parameters between groups. Conclusions: CC + SI improves resuscitative efforts of infantile piglets by increasing the intrathoracic pressure and minute ventilation, and thus reducing the duration of resuscitation, compared to CCaV.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".