Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

“Bystander” Chest Compressions and Assisted Ventilation Independently Improve Outcome From Piglet Asphyxial Pulseless “Cardiac Arrest”

Berg, Robert A., Hilwig, Ronald W., Kern, Karl B., Ewy, Gordon A.·2000·Circulation

Abstract

Background —Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without assisted ventilation may be as effective as CPR with assisted ventilation for ventricular fibrillatory cardiac arrests. However, chest compressions alone or ventilation alone is not effective for complete asphyxial cardiac arrests (loss of aortic pulsations). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether these techniques can independently improve outcome at an earlier stage of the asphyxial process. Methods and Results —After induction of anesthesia, 40 piglets (11.5±0.3 kg) underwent endotracheal tube clamping (6.8±0.3 minutes) until simulated pulselessness, defined as aortic systolic pressure <50 mm Hg. For the 8-minute “bystander CPR” period, animals were randomly assigned to chest compressions and assisted ventilation (CC+V), chest compressions only (CC), assisted ventilation only (V), or no bystander CPR (control group). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred during the first 2 minutes of bystander CPR in 10 of 10 CC+V piglets, 6 of 10 V piglets, 4 of 10 CC piglets, and none of the controls (CC+V or V versus controls, P <0.01; CC+V versus CC and V combined, P =0.01). During the first minute of CPR, arterial and mixed venous blood gases were superior in the 3 experimental groups compared with the controls. Twenty-four-hour survival was similarly superior in the 3 experimental groups compared with the controls (8 of 10, 6 of 10, 5 of 10, and 0 of 10, P <0.05 each). Conclusions —Bystander CPR with CC+V improves outcome in the early stages of apparent pulseless asphyxial cardiac arrest. In addition, this study establishes that bystander CPR with CC or V can independently improve outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.101.14.1743

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Berg, R. A., Hilwig, R. W., Kern, K. B., & Ewy, G. A.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2000-04-11
Volume
101
Issue
14
Pages
1743-1748
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2140481221
Cited by
212
References
0
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Bystander” Chest Compressions and Assisted Ventilation Independently Improve Outcome From Piglet Asphyxial Pulseless “Cardiac Arrest”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.101.14.1743
The paper
Berg, R. A., Hilwig, R. W., Kern, K. B., & Ewy, G. A. (2000). “Bystander” Chest Compressions and Assisted Ventilation Independently Improve Outcome From Piglet Asphyxial Pulseless “Cardiac Arrest”. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.101.14.1743

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.