Effects of

Samira Akbas, Clara Castellucci, Christopher Haresleb, Alexander Kaserer, Donat R Spahn, Jan Breckwoldt

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Samira AkbasInstitute of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Clara CastellucciDivision of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Management, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Christopher HareslebDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Rheinstrasse 26, 4410 Liestal, Switzerland.

Alexander KasererInstitute of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Donat R SpahnUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Jan BreckwoldtInstitute of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: This scoping review aimed to summarize existing evidence on the administration of hypertonic and hyperoncotic (HTF/HOF) fluids during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in both human and animal studies. Further, we sought to provide guidance for future research and potential clinical implementation strategies. Methods: We searched Results: We included 21 animal and four human studies. Animal studies showed high heterogeneity in species, cardiac arrest models, timing and composition of HTF/HOF. Most of them found improved neurological outcomes compared to normal saline. In the human studies (overall sample size 932), patients were either treated with a combination of hypertonic saline and hydroxyethyl starch (HHS) or with hypertonic saline alone (HS). Time points of fluid administration and assessed outcome parameters differed substantially. Overall, human studies indicated neutral to favorable effects, supporting the potential value of HTF/HOF treatment. Conclusions: Studies analyzing the effects of HTF/HOF in

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary resuscitationHyperoncotic fluidsHypertonic fluidsOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41404158

DOI10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101171

PMCPMC12704065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.