ArticleResuscitation plus2022
Pediatric defibrillation shocks alone do not cause heart damage in a porcine model.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2022. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimAutomated external defibrillators (AEDs) use various shock protocols with different characteristics when deployed in pediatric mode. The aim of this study is to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of different AED pediatric protocols using novel experimental approaches.
methodsTwo defibrillation protocols (A and B) were assessed across two studies: Protocol A: escalating (50-75-90 J) defibrillation waveform with higher voltage, shorter duration and equal phase durations. Protocol B; non-escalating (50-50-50 J) defibrillation waveform with lower voltage, longer duration and unequal phase durations.Experiment 1: Isolated shock damage was assessed following shocks to 12 anesthetized pigs. Animals were randomized into two groups, receiving three shocks from Protocol A (50-75-90 J) or B (50-50-50 J). Cardiac function, cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and histopathology were analyzed. Experiment 2: Defibrillation safety and efficacy were assessed through shock success, ROSC, ST-segment deviation and contractility following 16 randomized shocks from protocol A or B delivered to 10 anesthetized pigs in VF.
resultsExperiment 1: No clinically meaningful difference in cTnI, CPK, ST-segment deviation, ejection fraction or histopathological damage was observed following defibrillation with either protocol. No difference was observed between protocols at any timepoint. Experiment 2: all defibrillation types demonstrated shock success and ROSC ≥ 97.5%. Post-ROSC contractility was similar between protocols.
conclusionsThere is no evidence that administration of clinically relevant shock sequences, without experimental confounders, result in significant myocardial damage in this model of pediatric resuscitation. Typical variations in AED pediatric mode settings do not affect defibrillation safety and efficacy.
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.