ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Bag-valve-endotracheal ventilation vs mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized experimental porcine study.
Article 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The impact of ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on downstream cardio-cerebral injury remains uncertain. Methods: Animals were randomized to bag-valve-endotracheal ventilation (BVE) or mechanical ventilation (MV) in a standardized porcine CPR model. Ventilator settings were predefined and held constant. MV (Oxylog 3000 plus) was delivered in a controlled mode (Vt 6-8 mL·kg Results: Compared with MV, BVE maintained lower mean airway and intrathoracic pressures (ITP), accompanied by more favorable perfusion and oxygen-metabolic profiles. BVE was associated with less severe myocardial and neuronal ultrastructural injury. Conclusions: In this prolonged porcine CPR model, BVE with real-time monitoring reduced ITP burden, improved hemodynamic and oxygen-metabolic profiles, and decreased markers of cardiac and cerebral injury compared with a conservatively configured MV strategy, suggesting that ventilation delivery may determine organ protection; however, these findings require confirmation in larger translational and clinical studies.
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.