Abstract 197: Rapid Pediatric Fluid Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficiency of Two Provider Endorsed Manual Fluid Resuscitation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Manual syringe techniques are commonly used by Health Care Providers (HCPs) to accomplish fluid resuscitation for children in shock. Objectives: We sought to determine which of two commonly practiced manual fluid resuscitation techniques, Disconnect-Reconnect (DRT) versus Push-Pull (PPT), yielded a higher rate of fluid administration. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that a difference in fluid resuscitation rate would exist between DRT and PPT. Methods: A 16 participant randomized crossover trial was conducted at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Canada. Consenting HCPs were oriented to the experimental setup, which involved a non-clinical model of a 15 kg toddler in decompensated septic shock. The model incorporated a 22-gauge catheter, with administered fluid draining into a 1-litre graduated cylinder. Following randomization, subjects completed a brief standardization procedure and then were asked to rapidly administer 900 mL (60 mL/kg) of 0.9% normal saline to the simulated child. Between DRT and PPT, a 30-minute washout period was enforced. All testing was video recorded, with data extracted from trial videos by two blinded outcome assessors. The primary outcome of a difference in total fluid administration rate was analyzed by paired t-test. Results: Total fluid administration rate (mL/second) significantly differed between the two techniques, with a mean difference of 0.15 [95% CI 0.05; 0.25] (p=0.005). Mean (sd) fluid administration rates were DRT, 1.77 (0.145) and PPT, 1.62 (0.226). A change in fluid administration rate occurred over the intervention for DRT, F(1,15)=2316.36 (p<0.001) and PPT, F(1,15)=806.04 (p<0.001). Pairwise comparisons indicate that DRT Rate 1, 1.63 (0.143) significantly differed from Rate 2, 1.83 (0.176) and Rate 3, 1.88 (0.180); (p<0.001). PPT Rate 1, 1.62 (0.223) and Rate 2, 1.58 (0.237) did not differ, but Rate 2 significantly differed from Rate 3, 1.67 (0.265); (p=0.003). HCPs encountered technical issues more frequently when performing PPT versus DRT. No catheter dislodgements occurred. HCP self reported fatigue did not differ between DRT and PPT (p=0.755). Conclusions: Use of DRT resulted in a faster rate of fluid administration than PPT in a simulated pediatric resuscitation scenario.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".