Energy doses for paediatric defibrillation in cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early defibrillation is the foundation of treatment of shockable ventricular arrhythmias (VF, pVT) but optimal energy doses for initial and subsequent shocks in paediatric cardiac arrest remain controversial. Objectives: To assess the use of different energy doses for initial defibrillation in infants, children and adolescents with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) during cardiac arrest. Methods: A systematic review was performed by the ILCOR Paediatric Life Support Task force. This systematic review was prospectively registered as PROSPERO CRD42024548898. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) was performed for clinical trials and observational studies, published before 1 January 2025, involving cardiac defibrillation in infants and children (excluding newborn infants) in cardiac arrest. Investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I framework. Critical outcomes included survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation. Results were compiled into a Summary of Findings table using the GRADEpro Guideline Development tool. Statistical calculations and Forest plot generation were performed using RevMan. Results: We identified 7 relevant observational studies. The majority of studies involved in-hospital cardiac arrest. The overall certainty of evidence was very low. Critical (survival to hospital discharge, return of spontaneous circulation) and important (termination of VF/pVT) outcomes were not significantly better or worse when initial defibrillation doses of <1.5 J/kg or >2.5 J/kg were used for children in cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm compared with initial doses approximating 2 J/kg. Conclusions: The current available data suggest that outcomes are not significantly better or worse when initial defibrillation doses of <1.5 J/kg or >2.5 J/kg are used for children in cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm (VF or pVT) compared with initial doses approximating 2 J/kg. Well-designed randomised trials are needed to address this important question.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".