ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Ventilation efficacy during paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (PEDIVENT): simulation-based comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This simulation-based study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ventilation during paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provided by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and lay rescuers (LRs). The objective was to assess the number of effective breaths delivered during the initial sequence of CPR. Effective ventilation plays a critical role during paediatric CPR as most cardiac arrests are secondary to hypoxia in origin. The recommendations on initial resuscitation in unresponsive, non-breathing children differ worldwide. The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines recommend five breaths before starting the chest compressions. Yet, this recommendation was based on the expert consensus historically and has not changed since 2000 because of the lack of evidence. This research addresses the identified knowledge gap, with potential implications for improving resuscitation practices and ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. Methods: HCPs and LRs performed 90 s of CPR involving two mannequins: 5-kg Baby and 20-kg Junior. Both groups (HCPs and LRs) performed the task before and after structured CPR training, and the efficacy of ventilation before and after the training was compared. The HCPs provided bag-mask ventilation; LR performed dispatcher-assisted CPR with mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Results: The number of participants that reached the primary outcome before and after the training in Baby was 26 (65%) vs. 40 (100%) in HCPs and 28 (60.9%) vs. 45 (97.8%) in LRs (improvement in both Discussion: This simulation-based study is the first to investigate ventilation efficacy during paediatric CPR provided by HCPs and LRs. Ventilation represents an important aspect of good-quality CPR in children. The concept of initiating paediatric CPR with initial breaths, as stated in ERC guidelines 2021, is justifiable. Trained HCPs and LRs providing dispatcher-assisted CPR could deliver effective ventilation to paediatric mannequins. These findings can contribute to future research in this area and address identified knowledge gaps concerning resuscitation guidelines, given the unique practical application of simulation as a research tool.
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.