ArticlePloS one2019
Non-perfusing cardiac rhythms in asphyxiated newborn piglets.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vasopressin versus epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated newborns: A study protocol for a prospective, cluster, open label, single-center, randomized controlled phase 2 trial - The VERSE-Trial.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- Pathophysiology of Perinatal Asphyxia in Humans and Animal Models.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Is Chest Compression Superimposed with Sustained Inflation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation an Alternative to 3:1 Compression to Ventilation Ratio in Newborn Infants?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Evaluation of a Tap-Based Smartphone App for Heart Rate Assessment During Asphyxia in a Porcine Model of Neonatal Resuscitation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe recently demonstrated that asphyxiated piglets commonly had bradycardia displayed on electrocardiography (ECG) while no carotid blood flow (CBF) or audible heart sounds could be detected. Such pulseless electrical activity (PEA) in newborn infants has not previously been thoroughly described. The aim of this study was to further investigate the occurrence of non-perfusing cardiac rhythms in asphyxiated piglets and the potential implications for the success of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and short-term survival.
methodsNeonatal piglets (1-4 days, 1.7-2.4kg) had their right common carotid artery exposed and enclosed with a real-time ultrasonic flow probe. Heart rate (HR) was continuously measured and recorded using ECG. This allowed simultaneous monitoring of HR via ECG and CBF. The piglets were asphyxiated until cardiac arrest, defined as no CBF and no audible beat upon precordial auscultation. CPR was performed until return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC, defined as a HR ≥100 bpm). ECG traces were retrospectively assessed.
resultsNine out of 21 piglets (43%) had QRS-complexes on their ECG while no CBF and no audible heart sounds could be detected. Five (56%) of the piglets with PEA and 12/12 (100%) piglets with asystole at cardiac arrest obtained ROSC (p = 0.02). Thirty-three per cent of the piglets with PEA versus 58% with asystole survived to 4 hours post-ROSC (p = 0.39).
conclusionCardiac arrest in the presence of a non-perfusing cardiac rhythm on ECG is common in asphyxiated piglets. Clinical arrest in the presence of a non-perfusing cardiac rhythm on ECG may reduce the success of CPR.
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.