MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P192: What is the Role of Chest Compression Depth during Out-of-Hospital CPR?

2008· article· en· W115523966 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian G. Stiell, Siobhan Everson‐Stewart, James Christenson, Sheldon Cheskes, Judy Powell, Blair L. Bigham, Laurie J. Morrison, Jonathan Larsen, Graham Nichol, Erik P. Hess, Christian Vaillancourt, Daniel P. Davis, Clifton W. Callaway

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationCompression (physics)AsystoleData compression ratioCardiologyInternal medicineResuscitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Current CPR compression depth guidelines were empirically derived. We sought to study patterns of CPR compression depth and their associations with patient outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA). Methods: We studied OOHCA patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry - Cardiac Arrest for whom electronic CPR data were available from proprietary accelerometer technology attached to the prehospital defibrillators. We calculated anterior chest wall depression in millimeters and the period of active CPR (chest compression fraction [CCF]) for each minute of CPR. We controlled for covariates including compression rate and calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) for any return of circulation (ROSC) and 24 hour survival. We calculated unadjusted OR for hospital discharge. Results: We included 615 adult patients from 6 U.S. and Canadian cities with these characteristics: mean age 68.9; male 62 %; witnessed 43%; bystander CPR 31%; initial rhythms - VF/VT 25%, PEA 17%, asystole 43%, unspecified non-shockable 15%; mean compression rate 103/min; mean compression depth <38mm 51%, 38–51mm 39%, >51mm 11%; median CCF 0.66; outcomes - ROSC 57%, 24 hour survival 18%, discharge 5%. We found an inverse association between depth and compression rate (P<0.0001; see Table ), no association between depth and CCF (P=0.30), and a positive association between CCF and rate (P<0.0001). ORs with 95% CIs for each 5mm increment in compression depth and the outcomes were: 1) ROSC - adjusted OR 1.06 (0.97–1.16), 2) 24 hour survival - adjusted OR 1.01 (0.98–1.03), 3) discharge - unadjusted OR 1.13 (0.95–1.34). Conclusions: We found half of patients received suboptimal compression depth, an inverse association between compression depth and rate, and no clear association between survival and increased compression depth. Further study is required to determine the optimum chest compression depth and its interaction with rate and CCF in order to maximize outcomes. Compression Rate versus Compression Depth

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→