| Literature DB >> 34003839 |
Jose Julio Gutiérrez1, Mikel Leturiondo1, Sofía Ruiz de Gauna1, Jesus María Ruiz1, Izaskun Azcarate1, Digna María González-Otero1,2, Juan Francisco Urtusagasti3, James Knox Russell4, Mohamud Ramzan Daya4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) can help to monitor circulation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, early detection of restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) during CPR using waveform capnography remains a challenge. The aim of the study was to investigate if the assessment of ETCO2 variation during chest compression pauses could allow for ROSC detection. We hypothesized that a decay in ETCO2 during a compression pause indicates no ROSC while a constant or increasing ETCO2 indicates ROSC.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34003839 PMCID: PMC8130954 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Examples of segment annotation.
(A) ROSC segment and (B) non-ROSC (PEA) segment. Capnogram, compression depth, ECG and transthoracic impedance (TTI) signals are depicted for each segment.
Fig 2Flowchart of episode selection.
Fig 3Illustration of the behavior of ΔETavg.
ROSC (A) and non-ROSC (B) capnogram segments with different ΔETavg values.
Segments characterization as a function of the airway type and ROSC condition.
Values are reported as median (IQR).
| SGA | ETT | TOTAL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROSC | non-ROSC | ROSC | non-ROSC | ROSC | non-ROSC | |
| 48 | 39 | 80 | 35 | 130 | 75 | |
| 48 | 115 | 80 | 132 | 130 | 254 | |
| 17.0 (16.0,18.6) | 15.3 (12.4,18.2) | 17.7 (16.2,19) | 16.2 (13.0,18) | 17.5 (16.1,18.7) | 15.9 (12.6,18.0) | |
| nv | 4 (3,5) | 3 (3,4) | 4 (3,5) | 3 (3,5) | 4 (3,5) | 3 (3,4) |
| 12.8 (11.0,17.2) | 14.5 (12.3,17.8) | 13.6 (9.8,17.8) | 14.6 (10.6,19.1) | 13.3 (10.4,17.5) | 14.5 (11.1,18.6) | |
| 50.9 (40.3,60.8) | 30.3 (22.2,39.9) | 41.8 (32.0,55.8) | 24.9 (15.1,37.7) | 45.8 (34.7,58.4) | 29.4 (19.1,39.6) | |
| 0.0 (-0.7,1.1) | -10.2 (-12.8,-7.3) | 0.3 (-0.5,1.3) | -11.4 (-14.5,-7.9) | 0.0 (-0.7,0.9) | -11.0 (-14.1,-8.0) | |
nv: ventilations per segment; vr: ventilation rate in ventilations per minute (vpm); ET0: initial ETCO2; ΔETavg: average ETCO2 variation.
ap = 0.012,
bp = 0.001,
cp<0.0001.
Fig 4Statistical distributions for ROSC and non-ROSC segments.
Initial ETCO2 (ET0), ventilation rate (vr), and average variation (ΔETavg) for all ROSC and non-ROSC segments included in the study.
ROSC detection results, as a function of the number of considered ventilations per segment, for the whole set and for the PEA/PR subset.
Durations are reported as median (IQR). The 95% confidence intervals are in parenthesis.
| Whole set | All ventilations | First 3 ventilations | First 2 ventilations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.3 (12.9, 18.1) | 11.9 (9.3, 14.8) | 7.7 (6.0, 10.2) | |
| Se (%) | 95.4 (90.1, 98.1) | 93.8 (88.1, 97.0) | 90.0 (83.5, 94.2) |
| Sp (%) | 94.9 (91.4, 97.1) | 95.3 (91.8, 97.4) | 89.4 (84.9, 92.6) |
| PPV (%) | 90.5 (84.3, 94.5) | 91.0 (84.9, 94.9) | 81.3 (74.0, 86.8) |
| NPV (%) | 97.6 (94.7, 99.0) | 96.8 (93.7, 98.5) | 94.6 (90.9, 96.9) |
| Se (%) | 94.6 (89.1, 97.6) | 93.8 (88.1, 97.0) | 88.5 (81.7, 93.0) |
| Sp (%) | 94.3 (90.0, 97.0) | 94.8 (90.6, 97.3) | 88.1 (82.7, 92.0) |
| PPV (%) | 91.8 (85.8, 95.5) | 92.4 (86.5, 96.0) | 83.3 (76.2, 88.7) |
| NPV (%) | 96.3 (92.4, 98.3) | 95.8 (91.8, 98.0) | 92.0 (87.0, 95.1) |
Se: sensitivity (TP/(TP+FN)); Sp: specificity (TN/(TN+FP)); PPV: positive predictive value (TP/(TP+FP)); NPV: negative predictive value (TN/()TN+FN). TP: true positive; FP: false positive; TN: true negative; FN: false negative.