ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices are widely used to rescue patients from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between a motor-driven, automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS). MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter 2 minutes of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), Yorkshire pigs (weight 35-60 kg) received CPR with an automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic CPR device (X-CPR group, n = 13) or the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS group, n = 12). Basic life support for 6 minutes and advanced cardiovascular life support for 12 minutes, including defibrillation and epinephrine administration, were provided. Hemodynamic parameters and resuscitation outcomes, including return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 24-hour survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 24 hours, were evaluated.
resultsHemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure were not significantly different between the two groups. Resuscitation outcomes were also not significantly different between the groups (X-CPR vs. LUCAS; rate of ROSC: 31% vs 25%, p = 1.000; 24-hour survival rate: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645; neurological outcome with CPC ≤2: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645). Also no significant difference in incidence complications associated with resuscitation was found between the groups.
conclusionsCPR with a motor-driven X-CPR and CPR with the LUCAS produced similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes in a swine model of cardiac arrest.
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.