ArticlePediatric research2026
Chest compression synchronized ventilation versus chest compression asynchronized ventilation in asphyxiated pediatric piglets-a randomized animal trial.
Article in Pediatric research, 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
backgroundCurrent pediatric guidelines recommend chest compressions with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) after an advanced airway has been secured. An alternative approach might be chest compression synchronized ventilation (CCSV). We hypothesized that CCSV, compared to CCaV, will decrease time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in asphyxiated pediatric piglets with bradycardic cardiac arrest.
methodsTwenty pediatric pigs (n = 10/group, 3-4 weeks old) were anesthetized, intubated, and instrumented, followed by asphyxia and bradycardic cardiac arrest. Piglets were randomized to CCSV or CCaV. During CCSV, piglets received 100-120 compressions/min with a ventilator-synchronized inflation delivered during every compression (CCSV Mode, MEDUMAT Standard
resultsThe median (IQR) asphyxia time was not different between CCSV (391 (338-413)) s and CCaV (342 (283-385)) s (p = 0.151). Time to ROSC was not significantly different between groups, CCSV with 428 (344-526) s vs CCaV with 271 (172-454) s (p = 0.240). Rate of ROSC with CCSV was 6/10 and with CCaV was 6/10 (p = 1.000).
conclusionDuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the high ventilation rates delivered by CCSV did not improve outcomes in pediatric piglets compared to lower ventilation rates delivered by CCaV. IMPACT: This is the first pediatric animal study to compare chest compression synchronized ventilation (CCSV) and chest compression asynchronous ventilation (CCaV) following asphyxial cardiac arrest. Time to and rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were similar between CCSV and CCaV. Hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after resuscitation were comparable between CCSV and CCaV groups. Respiratory parameters differed, with higher ventilation rates and minute ventilation during CCSV without affecting gas exchange or outcomes. Markers of lung inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α) were similar between CCSV and CCaV, indicating no added pulmonary injury with synchronized ventilation.
Identifiers
42498828What 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.