MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119878353

Predictors of survival following in-hospital adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

2002· article· en· W2119878353 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter G. Brindley, Darren M. Markland, Irvin Mayers, Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsystoleMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationPulseless electrical activityRespiratory arrestResuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationHospital dischargeEmergency medicineConfidence intervalBasic life supportMedical recordEmergency medical servicesAnesthesiaInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to provide up-to-date survival data for Canadian adult in-patients following attempted resuscitation from cardiac or respiratory arrest. We hope that objective data might encourage more meaningful dialogue between physicians, patients and their families regarding resuscitation wishes. METHODS: We reviewed all records of adult cardiopulmonary arrest that occurred between Jan. 1, 1997, and Jan. 31, 1999, at the 3 main teaching hospitals in Edmonton. We then abstracted data from the full inpatient medical records to describe patient characteristics, type of arrest and survival details. The family physicians of survivors were contacted to confirm the outcomes. We included only adults admitted to hospital but not to a critical care bed. RESULTS: There were 247 arrests during the study period; 143 (57.9%) were witnessed, and 104 (42.1%) were unwitnessed). Of the patients whose arrests were witnessed, 48.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.8%-56.8%) were able to be resuscitated, 22.4% (95% CI 1 5.8%-30.1%) survived to hospital discharge, and 18.9% (95% CI 12.8%-26.3%) were able to return home. Survival was highest after primary respiratory arrest and lowest after pulseless electrical activity or asystole. Of the patients with unwitnessed arrests, 21.2% (95% CI 13.8%-30.3%) were able to be resuscitated, but only 1 patient (1.0% [95% CI 0.0%-5.2%]) survived to hospital discharge and was able to return home. This patient survived an unwitnessed respiratory arrest. No patient who had an unwitnessed cardiac arrest survived to discharge. Most of the respiratory arrests were witnessed (93.1%), and most of the pulseless electrical activity or asystole arrests were unwitnessed (54.6%). We did not find age or sex to be independent predictors of survival. However, the risk of not returning home was higher among patients whose arrest occurred between 2301 and 0700 than among those whose arrest was between 0701 and 1500 (adjusted OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.0-10.1). Survival was significantly decreased after pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation arrest (adjusted OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.4-12.5) and even more so after pulseless electrical activity or asystole arrest (adjusted OR 21.0, 95% CI 6.2-71.7) than after respiratory arrest. INTERPRETATION: Overall, survival following cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital does not appear to have changed markedly in 40 years. The type of arrest is highly predictive of survival, whereas age and sex are not.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations223
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207