MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Practical application of pressure-volume loop analysis in a swine model of medical cardiac arrest

2025· article· en· W7127611814 on OpenAlexaff
Grzegorz Jodłowski, Mathieu Rousseau, J F Jacobs, J Nelson, May Dvir, David P. Stonko, P F Walker, J J Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular fibrillationReturn of spontaneous circulationPulseless electrical activityResuscitationSudden cardiac deathAdvanced cardiac life supportAnimal model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Cardiac arrest (CA) is the sudden cessation of cardiac activity, leading to haemodynamic collapse and high mortality. Advanced life support (ALS) standardises resuscitation, but the post-return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) period remains turbulent and poorly understood. Up to 50% of patients who achieve ROSC struggle to maintain spontaneous circulation, leading to re-arrest, typically within minutes. Post-cardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS), involving brain injury and ischaemia-reperfusion injury, plays a key role in re-arrest. Pressure-volume loop (PVL) analysis offers insight into load-independent cardiac biomechanics in the post-ROSC period. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of PVL analysis in a swine model of CA. Methods This swine study utilised a ventricular fibrillation (VF) cardiac arrest model in combination with PVL analysis. The experiment included four phases: animal preparation, VF induction, resuscitation, and post-ROSC care. Yorkshire swine (45-70 kg) were sedated, anaesthetised, and VF was induced via an endocavitary electrode attached to a battery. After that, the animals were divided into 3-minute and 6-minute arrest groups before commencing ALS. Standard ALS protocols were followed, including CPR, defibrillation, and drug administration. If ROSC was obtained, animals underwent a 3-hour critical care period. Cardiac indices were compared between baseline and end-of-study values. Results Eight adult Yorkshire swine were enrolled in the study, with a mean weight of 50.2 ± 2.9 kg. VF induction was successfully achieved, and PVL data were collected in all animals except one, establishing a successful porcine VF CA model. In the resuscitation phase, all animals in the 3-minute group achieved ROSC, as opposed to one in the 6-minute group. Post-ROSC metabolic changes included acidaemia, elevated lactate and potassium, partially resolving by study end. Right ventricle PVL data were unreliable, while left ventricle PVL was reliable in 3 of 5 ROSC animals. Preload-recruitable stroke work (PRSW) data were found to be more reliable than the End-Diastolic Pressure-Volume Relationship (ESPVR), with a significant increase in LV PRSW of 34 ± 12% observed post-ROSC in all surviving animals (p<0.001). Discussion This study demonstrates the feasibility of applying PVL analysis to a post-ROSC swine model of cardiac arrest (CA). As expected, warm ischaemic time predicted ROSC, but PVL analysis offered valuable insights into load-independent parameters. While data quality issues hindered ESPVR analysis, PRSW was successfully evaluated, revealing a significant increase post-ROSC, highlighting its potential to guide the development of future therapeutic targets for post-ROSC interventions. The small sample size and technical challenges limited the scope of conclusions, emphasising the need for larger studies.Kaplan-Meier Curve and cycles to ROSC (A) LV PVL, (B) PRSW Pre and Post-ROSC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→