ArticlePloS one2023
Development of an automatic device performing chest compression and external defibrillation: An animal-based pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thoughts on recent articles on cardiopulmonary resuscitation.World journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Automatic Compression-Defibrillation Apparatus: An Animal Study and A Manikin-Based Simulation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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
backgroundAutomatic chest compression devices (ACCDs) can promote high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and are widely used worldwide. Early application of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) along with high-quality CPR is crucial for favorable outcomes in patients with cardiac arrest. Here, we developed an automated CPR (A-CPR) apparatus that combines ACCD and AED and evaluated its performance in a pilot animal-based study.
methodsEleven pigs (n = 5, A-CPR group; n = 6, ACCD CPR and AED [conventional CPR (C-CPR)] group) were enrolled in this study. After 2 min observation without any treatment following ventricular fibrillation induction, CPR with a 30:2 compression/ventilation ratio was performed for 6 min, mimicking basic life support (BLS). A-CPR or C-CPR was applied immediately after BLS, and resuscitation including chest compression and defibrillation, was performed following a voice prompt from the A-CPR device or AED. Hemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide, were monitored during resuscitation. Time variables, including time to start rhythm analysis, time to charge, time to defibrillate, and time to subsequent chest compression, were also measured.
resultsThere were no differences in baseline characteristics, except for arterial carbon dioxide pressure (39 in A-CPR vs. 33 in C-CPR, p = 0.034), between the two groups. There were no differences in hemodynamic parameters between the groups. However, time to charge (28.9 ± 5.6 s, A-CPR group; 47.2 ± 12.4 s, C-CPR group), time to defibrillate (29.1 ± 7.2 s, A-CPR group; 50.5 ± 12.3 s, C-CPR group), and time to subsequent chest compression (32.4 ± 6.3 s, A-CPR group; 56.3 ± 10.7 s, C-CPR group) were shorter in the A-CPR group than in the C-CPR group (p = 0.015, 0.034 and 0.02 respectively).
conclusionsA-CPR can provide effective chest compressions and defibrillation, thereby shortening the time required for defibrillation.
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.