Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31318890›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison between synchronized and non-synchronized ventilation and between guided and non-guided chest compressions during resuscitation in a pediatric animal model after asphyxial cardiac arrest.

Gema Manrique, Miriam García, Sarah N Fernández, Rafael González, María J Solana, Jorge López, Javier Urbano, Jesús López-Herce

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gema ManriquePediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1311-9022
Miriam GarcíaPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Sarah N FernándezPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Rafael GonzálezPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
María J SolanaPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Jorge LópezPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Javier UrbanoPediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3511-2905
Jesús López-HercePediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere are no studies comparing synchronized and non-synchronized ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation (BVMV) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in pediatric patients. The main aim is to compare between synchronized and non-synchronized BVMV with chest compressions (CC), and between guided and non-guided CC with a real-time feedback-device in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest (CA). The secondary aim is to analyze the quality of CC during resuscitation.

methods60 piglets were randomized for CPR into four groups: Group A: guided-CC and synchronized ventilation; Group B: guided-CC and non-synchronized ventilation; Group C: non-guided CC and synchronized ventilation; Group D: non-guided CC and non-synchronized ventilation. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and quality of CC were compared between all groups.

results60 piglets were included. Twenty-six (46.5%) achieved ROSC: A (46.7%), B (66.7%), C (26.7%) and D (33.3%). Survival rates were higher in group B than in groups A+C+D (66.7% vs 35.6%, p = 0.035). ROSC was higher with guided-CC (A+B 56.7% vs C+D 30%, p = 0.037). Piglets receiving non-synchronized ventilation did not show different rates of ROSC than synchronized ventilation (B+D 50% vs A+C 36.7%, p = 0.297). Non-synchronized groups showed lower arterial pCO2 after 3 minutes of CPR than synchronized groups: 57 vs 71 mmHg, p = 0.019. No differences were found in arterial pH and pO2, mean arterial pressure (MAP) or cerebral blood flow between groups. Chest compressions were shallower in surviving than in non-surviving piglets (4.7 vs 5.1 cm, p = 0.047). There was a negative correlation between time without CC and MAP (r = -0.35, p = 0.038).

conclusionsThe group receiving non-synchronized ventilation and guided-CC obtained significantly higher ROSC rates than the other modalities of resuscitation. Guided-CC achieved higher ROSC rates than non-guided CC. Non-synchronized ventilation was associated with better ventilation parameters, with no differences in hemodynamics or cerebral flow.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationRespiration, ArtificialAnimalsArterial PressureAsphyxiaBlood CirculationCerebrovascular CirculationDisease Models, AnimalHeart ArrestHemodynamicsPerfusionRespirationSwine

Identifiers

PMID31318890
PMCPMC6638932
OpenAlexW2963048592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.