ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Real-world adoption and use of a ventilation feedback device during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a population-based observational study from a French prehospital system.
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: Ventilation quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation remains highly variable despite clear guidelines. Ventilation feedback devices have shown substantial improvements in simulated settings, but real-world implementation data remain limited.We aimed to evaluate real-world adoption and use of a ventilation feedback device during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) management in a French prehospital system. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population-based observational study of adult OHCAs jointly managed by firefighters and Mobile Intensive Care Unit teams in the Doubs region. Cases from 2022 (pre-implementation) and 2024 (post-implementation) were analysed. The primary outcome was device utilisation. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and neurological status, reported descriptively and exploratorily. Results: Among 756 patients, 190 (2022) and 166 (2024) met the inclusion criteria. Despite a protocol mandating its systematic use, the device was used in 48/166 (28.9%) cases.Baseline characteristics and resuscitation variables were comparable between groups. Exploratory analyses showed return of spontaneous circulation in 25.0% with device versus 16.1% without (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.74 confidence interval (CI) 95% [0.77; 3.93]), and survival at day 30 in 10.4% versus 4.2% (unadjusted OR = 2.63 [0.72; 9.53]). Favourable neurological outcome at day 30 was observed in 10.4% versus 3.4% (unadjusted OR = 3.28 [0.84; 12.8]). Given the observational design and limited sample size, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. Conclusion: This study highlights a discrepancy between protocol and real-world use of a ventilation feedback device during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. They underscore the need to better understand implementation factors to inform future studies evaluating clinical effectiveness. Future research should incorporate robust implementation strategies and standardised ventilation parameters.
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.