ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Hand position during chest compression in infantile piglets - Do you need to encircle the chest with the 2-thumb-technique?
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Pediatric Life Support Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations states that chest compressions (CC) be performed with the 2-thumb-encircling and if the chest can not be encircled the 2-finger-technique. Aim: To compare the hemodynamic effects of four different compression methods during CC in a piglet model of infant asphyxia. Methods: Nine asphyxiated infant piglets were randomized to CC with 2-thumb-encircling, 2-thumb-, 2-finger-, and one-hand-techniques for one minute at each technique. CC were performed manually while hemodynamic parameters were continuously measured. Results: Nine infantile piglets (age 5-10 days, weight 2.1-3.0 kg) were included in the study. The 2-thumb-technique and 2-thumb-encircling technique both had a significantly higher mean (SD) ejection fraction of 52.6 (31.2)% and 64.4 (30.6)% compared to the one-hand-technique with 26.6 (15.1)% (p = 0.005). The 2-thumb-encircling technique also had a significantly higher ejection fraction compared to the 2-finger-technique with values of 64.4 (30.6)% and 30.4 (12.1)%, respectively (p = 0.005). Furthermore, 2-thumb-technique and 2-thumb-encircling technique produced significantly higher carotid blood flow and dp/dt Conclusion: The 2-thumb- and 2-thumb-encircling-techniques produced significantly higher ejection fraction, carotid blood flow, and dp/dt
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.