ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with synchronized ventilation versus 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio in a neonatal porcine model.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend a 3:1 Compression:Ventilation ratio (3:1 C:V) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. One of the concerns with 3:1 C:V is lung derecruitment, which contributes to a delay in achieving return to spontaneous circulation (ROSC). An alternative approach might be chest compression synchronized ventilation (CCSV), which delivers a ventilation with each chest compression thereby achieving lung recruitment. We hypothesized that in asphyxiated newborn piglets with cardiac arrest CCSV vs 3:1 C:V would decrease the time to ROSC. Methods: Newborn piglets were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 45-minute normocapnic hypoxia, followed by asphyxia. Piglets were randomized to either CCSV or 3:1 C:V. Piglets assigned to CCSV received 120 compressions/min with a ventilator-synchronized inflation delivered during every compression (CCSV-Mode, Weinmann Germany). In the 3:1 C:V group, piglets received 90 compressions/min and 30 ventilations/min. Compressions and ventilations were continued until ROSC. Continuous respiratory parameters, mean systemic artery pressures, and blood flows were measured. Results: Sixteen neonatal mixed breed pigs (1-3 days of age, weighing 1.8-2.5 kg) and were randomly assigned to CCSV or 3:1 C:V. The median (IQR) asphyxia time was not significantly different between CCSV (321 (264-384) s) and 3:1 C:V (416 (266-475) s) ( Conclusions: In a neonatal piglet model of asystolic cardiac arrest, CCSV resulted in a significantly faster time to ROSC compared to 3:1 C:V. Using CCSV might be an alternative to 3:1 C:V for neonatal resuscitation, but further studies are warranted.
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.