MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415973924 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101155

Bradycardia with haemodynamic compromise in children: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4415973924 on OpenAlex
Amanda O’Halloran, James Gray, Seth Gray, Martha Kienzle, Catherine E. Ross, Jason Acworth, Gabrielle Nuthall, Andrea Christoff, Joseph W. Rossano, Laurie J. Morrison, Barnaby R. Scholefield, Alexis Topjian

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoMental Health Research CanadaHospital for Sick Children
FundersNHLBI Division of Intramural ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsBradycardiaHemodynamicsHaemodynamic responseCompromiseClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bradycardia with haemodynamic compromise is the most common in-hospital cardiac arrest initial rhythm in children. There are knowledge gaps in the efficacy of several treatments. This scoping review, part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation continuous evidence evaluation process, sought to identify the literature on treatments for children with bradycardia and haemodynamic compromise.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane (inception-August 19, 2025) for studies involving children with bradycardia (<60 beats per minute or low for age) and haemodynamic compromise (age-based hypotension, altered mental status, or signs of shock or cardiac arrest). Data extracted included study design, population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes.We screened 5392 titles and included 27 observational studies. In twenty-six studies, children with bradycardia with haemodynamic compromise who received CPR as part of a comprehensive protocol of drugs, airway support, and chest compressions had higher survival rates when compared with children receiving the same care for a pulseless rhythm. Three studies reported conflicting associations between clinical outcomes (progression to pulselessness, return of circulation, survival) with epinephrine use during CPR. Two studies reported atropine use in patients with haemodynamic compromise, one with CPR and one without. No studies assessed oxygen administration, assisted ventilation, or transcutaneous pacing. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to move to a systematic review for any treatment strategy for paediatric bradycardia with haemodynamic compromise. Current guidelines are based on limited evidence and expert opinion. Comparative trials evaluating possible treatments for children with bradycardia with haemodynamic compromise are needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.343 · 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