ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Defining thoracic impedance thresholds for rescue ventilation: a laboratory 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aim: To establish evidence-based peak amplitude thresholds for thoracic bioimpedance monitoring of ventilation and characterize the relationship between peak amplitude and tidal volume across two defibrillator devices used in pre-hospital care during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods: Thirty healthy adults underwent mechanical ventilation while thoracic bioimpedance was monitored using LifePak12 and HeartStart MRx defibrillators at five tidal volumes (250-800 mL). Peak amplitude measurements were extracted from thoracic bioimpedance waveforms. Linear mixed-effects models accounted for repeated measurements. Sex-stratified analyses examined device-specific sensitivity differences. Breath detection thresholds were calculated at various target sensitivities. Results: Linear relationships were observed for both devices. The LifePak 12 device showed tidal volume slopes of 0.0022 Ω/mL for females and 0.0013 Ω/mL for males. The HeartStart MRx device demonstrated slopes of 0.0030 Ω/mL for females and 0.0016 Ω/mL for males. Males showed 41-47% lower sensitivity to tidal volume changes than females across both devices. Model performance showed intraclass-correlations of 0.713-0.783 with prediction correlations exceeding 0.97. For the 250 mL breath, peak amplitude thresholds were 0.630/0.40 Ω (female/male) for LifePak12 and 0.45/0.30 Ω for HeartStart MRx at 90% detection sensitivity. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary sex- and device-specific peak amplitude thresholds for breath identification using thoracic bioimpedance waveforms. The observed linear relationships and provided thresholds may improve categorical breath detection in resuscitation research. These findings require validation in cardiac arrest patients to ensure generalizability for clinical application.
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.