MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (E-CPR) During Pediatric In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Arrest Is Associated With Improved Survival to Discharge

2015· article· en· W2185135197 on OpenAlexaff
Javier J. Lasa, Rachel Rogers, Russell Localio, Justine Shults, Tia T. Raymond, Michael Gaies, Ravi R. Thiagarajan, Peter C. Laussen, Todd J. Kilbaugh, Robert A. Berg, Vinay Nadkarni, Alexis Topjian

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationConfidence intervalPropensity score matchingExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationOdds ratioHospital dischargeResuscitationExtracorporealInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) can result in survival after failed conventional CPR (C-CPR), no large, systematic comparison of pediatric E-CPR and continued C-CPR has been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients <18 years old with CPR events ≥10 minutes in duration reported to the Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry between January 2000 and December 2011 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by teaching status and location. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. Regression modeling was performed, conditioning on hospital groups. A secondary analysis was performed with the use of propensity score matching. Of 3756 evaluable patients, 591 (16%) received E-CPR and 3165 (84%) received C-CPR only. Survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score of 1-3 or unchanged from admission) were greater for E-CPR (40% [237 of 591] and 27% [133 of 496]) versus C-CPR patients (27% [862 of 3165] and 18% [512 of 2840]). Odds ratios (ORs) for survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome were greater for E-CPR versus C-CPR. After adjustment for covariates, patients receiving E-CPR had higher odds of survival to discharge (OR, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.13-3.69; P<0.001) and survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-3.64; P<0.001) than patients who received C-CPR. This association persisted when analyzed by propensity score-matched cohorts (OR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-2.18; P<0.001; and OR, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.41; P<0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: For children with in-hospital CPR of ≥10 minutes duration, E-CPR was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome compared with C-CPR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations228
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207