ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Respiratory metrics of neonatal positive pressure ventilation on different ventilatory rates: A simulation study.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective ventilation is the core of neonatal resuscitation (NR). T-piece resuscitators (TPR) and self-inflating bags (SIB) are the two most widely utilized resuscitation devices. Nevertheless, limited information is available regarding the respiratory metrics during NR with these devices. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the respiratory metrics at different ventilatory rates (VR) using a TPR or SIB during NR training. Methods: An observational, simulation study was conducted during a NR training course. The participants were instructed to perform positive pressure ventilation at predetermined pressures and varying rates using TPR and SIB. They were subsequently grouped into three categories based on their actual VR: 20-40 breaths per minute (bpm) (SlowVR), 40-60 bpm (StdVR), and 60-80 bpm (FastVR). Respiratory metrics were recorded and analyzed using a neonatal active lung model (NALM). Results: Of the 71 participants in the training course, data from 66 were validated by analyzing 198 ventilations. In general, the participants manipulated the TPR slightly slower than the SIB. Notably, the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) detected via TPR in the NALM was substantially higher, whereas the tidal volume (Tv) and minute volume (MV) with TPR were significantly smaller than those with SIB (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in the peak alveolar pressure (palva) was observed with faster TPR ventilation (p < 0.001), whereas no such reduction was observed with SIB (p = 0.103). Additionally, faster VR correlated positively with higher PEEP levels for both TPR (F = 7.543, p = 0.002) and SIB (F = 7.720, p = 0.002) and inversely with smaller Tv for both TPR (F = 19.239, p < 0.001) and SIB (F = 14.937, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences in MV were observed across the different VR for either TPR or SIB (both p > 0.05). Conclusions: Faster VR were inversely associated with smaller Tv but increased PEEP in both devices. Despite the guidelines of NR, VR exceeding 60 bpm with TPR might sometimes be used, was associated with excessive PEEP in TPR, which may not be a safe in clinical practice. The effect of varying VR on MV was relatively minor for both TPR and SIB.
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.