ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Chest compression during sustained inflation versus 3:1 compression-to-ventilation ratio during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated piglets.
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: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend using the 3:1 chest compression-to-ventilation (C:V) ratio technique. However, an alternative technique using continuous compressions superimposed with a high distending pressure or sustained inflation (CC + SI) may improve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival, and post-resuscitation outcomes. Objective: In a piglet model of asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest, compare time to ROSC with CC + SI or 3:1C:V technique for providing neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Methods: Secondary analysis of 132 term newborn mixed breed piglets (1-3 days of age, weighing 1.7-2.4 kg) from six different studies, which were exposed to 30-50 min of normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia until cardiac arrest. This was followed by CPR with either the CC + SI or 3:1C:V technique. Results: Although the proportion of piglets achieving ROSC was similar between CC + SI and 3:1C:V [59/83 (71 %) vs. 40/49 (82 %)], the time to ROSC was significantly shorter with CC + SI [median (IQR), 87.5 (66.8-147.5) vs. 120 (76.5-267) s; p = 0.0097], corresponding to a mean difference of -73.9 s (95 % CI -122.5 to -25.3). Survival up to 4 h did not differ between groups (risk ratios 1.04, 95 % Confidence intervals 0.82-1.32), with mean (SD) survival time among ROSC survivors of 237 (18) min for CC + SI vs 220 (55) min for 3:1C:V (p = 0.0623). In adjusted analyses, CC + SI yielded faster time to ROSC (Geometric Mean Ratio 0.67, 95 % CI 0.50-0.88), with no effect modification by FiO Conclusions: Use of the CC + SI technique during neonatal piglet resuscitation leads to a faster ROSC, with no difference in survival.
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.