Update of a Systematic Review of Autoresuscitation After Cardiac Arrest
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: There has been a growth in publications focusing on the phenomena of autoresuscitation in recent years. In 2010, we systematically reviewed the medical literature with the primary objective of summarizing the evidence on the timing of autoresuscitation. Healthcare professionals have continued to voice concerns regarding the potential for autoresuscitation. With this in mind, the objective of this brief report is to update the results of our original review of autoresuscitation. DATA SOURCES: We applied the same search strategy described in our original article to update our findings to include articles published from January 2009 to September 2016. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We screened an additional 1,859 citations, after duplicates were removed, and then assessed 46 full-text articles for eligibility, from which 15 studies were included for data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: During the time period of this review, there have been 1) 10 additional adult and three pediatric case reports of autoresuscitation in patients after cessation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation; in those cases with continuous monitoring and confirmation of circulation, the longest events are reported to be 10 and 2 minutes, respectively for adults and children; 2) six adults (4%, total n = 162) with autoresuscitation events reported from two observational studies and one chart review of patients undergoing withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy; the longest time reported to be 89 seconds with electrocardiogram and invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring and 3 minutes with electrocardiogram monitoring only; 3) 12 pediatric patients studied with vital sign monitoring during withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy without any reports of autoresuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Although case reports of autoresuscitation are hampered by variability in observation and monitoring techniques, autoresuscitation has now been reported in adults and children, and there appears to be a distinction in timing between failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Although additional prospective studies are required to clarify the frequency and predisposing factors associated with this phenomenon, clinical decision-making regarding patient management under uncertainty is required nonetheless. Both adult and pediatric healthcare professionals should be aware of the possibility of autoresuscitation and monitor their patients accordingly before diagnosing death.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».