ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Continuous chest compression during sustained inflation versus continuous compression with asynchronized ventilation in an infantile porcine model of severe bradycardia.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chest compression synchronized ventilation versus chest compression asynchronized ventilation in asphyxiated pediatric piglets-a randomized animal trial.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Chest compression synchronized ventilation versus chest compression superimposed by sustained inflation in asphyxiated newborn piglets: a randomized animal trial.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Hand position during chest compression in infantile piglets - Do you need to encircle the chest with the 2-thumb-technique?Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recently, the American Heart Association released a statement calling for research examining the appropriate age to transition from the neonatal to pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation approach to resuscitation. Aim: To compare neonatal and pediatric resuscitation approach by using either continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) or continuous chest compression superimposed with sustained inflation (CC + SI) during infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We hypothesized that CC + SI compared to CCaV would reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in infantile piglets with asphyxia-induced bradycardic cardiac arrest. Methods: Twenty infantile piglets (5-10 days old) were anesthetized and asphyxiated by clamping the endotracheal tube. Piglets were randomized to CC + SI or CCaV for resuscitation (n = 10/group). Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, intrathoracic pressure and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Main results: The median (IQR) time to ROSC with CC + SI compared to CCaV was 179 (104-447) vs 660 (189-660), p = 0.05. The number of piglets achieving ROSC with CC + SI and CCaV were 8/10 and 6/10, p = 0.628. Piglets resuscitated with CC + SI required less epinephrine compared to CCaV (p = 0.039). CC + SI increased the intrathoracic pressure throughout resuscitation (p = 0.025) and increased minute ventilation (p < 0.001), compared to CCaV. There was no difference in hemodynamic parameters between groups. Conclusions: CC + SI improves resuscitative efforts of infantile piglets by increasing the intrathoracic pressure and minute ventilation, and thus reducing the duration of resuscitation, compared to CCaV.
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.