ArticlePloS one2017
Comparison between manual and mechanical chest compressions during resuscitation in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Injury characteristics and hemodynamics associated with guideline-compliant CPR in a pediatric porcine cardiac arrest model.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Effects of airway management and tidal volume feedback ventilation during pediatric resuscitation in piglets with asphyxial cardiac arrest.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- A novel mechanical chest compressor with rapid deployment in all population cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- [A new method for establishing a ventricular fibrillation model by TCEI in Tibetan miniature pig].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsChest compressions (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are not sufficiently effective in many circumstances. Mechanical CC could be more effective than manual CC, but there are no studies comparing both techniques in children. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of manual and mechanical chest compressions with Thumper device in a pediatric cardiac arrest animal model. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn experimental model of asphyxial cardiac arrest (CA) in 50 piglets (mean weight 9.6 kg) was used. Animals were randomized to receive either manual CC or mechanical CC using a pediatric piston chest compressions device (Life-Stat®, Michigan Instruments). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), arterial blood gases and end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) values were measured at 3, 9, 18 and 24 minutes after the beginning of resuscitation.
resultsThere were no significant differences in MAP, DAP, arterial blood gases and etCO2 between chest compression techniques during CPR. Survival rate was higher in the manual CC (15 of 30 = 50%) than in the mechanical CC group (3 of 20 = 15%) p = 0.016. In the mechanical CC group there was a non significant higher incidence of haemorrhage through the endotracheal tube (45% vs 20%, p = 0.114).
conclusionsIn a pediatric animal model of cardiac arrest, mechanical piston chest compressions produced lower survival rates than manual chest compressions, without any differences in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.