MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 287: What Is the Optimal Chest Compression Depth During Resuscitation from Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Adult Patients?

2012· article· en· W2261434631 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian G. Stiell, Siobhan P. Brown, Clifton W Calloway, Tom P. Aufderheide, Sheldon Cheskes, Christian Vaillancourt, David Hostler, Daniel P. Davis, Ahamed H. Idris, James Christenson, Laurie J. Morrison, John Stouffer, Cliff Free, Graham Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationClinical deathCardiac resuscitationEmergency medicineHospital dischargeCompression (physics)Heart massageCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The 2010 AHA/ILCOR recommendations suggested an increase in CPR compression depth for adults, with a target >50 mm and no upper limit. This target is based upon limited evidence and, hence, we sought to determine the optimal compression depth range for adult patients. Methods: We studied emergency medical services treated OOHCA patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium ROC PRIMED clinical trial and Epistry - Cardiac Arrest database for whom electronic CPR compression depth data were available, from June 2007 to December 2010. We calculated anterior chest wall depression in millimeters for each minute of CPR. We controlled for 10 covariates including compression rate and calculated adjusted odds ratios for survival to hospital discharge, 24-hour survival, and any return of circulation (ROSC). Smoothing splines were used to explore the relationship between average compression depth and outcome for all patients as well as men and women separately. Results: We included 9,142 adult patients from 9 U.S. and Canadian cities with these characteristics: mean age 67.5 years; male 64 %; bystander witnessed 44%; bystander CPR 42%; initial rhythms - VF/VT 24%, PEA 20%, asystole 49%, other non-shockable 6%; outcomes - ROSC 31.3%, 1-day survival 22.8%, survival to hospital discharge 7.3%. For all patients, mean compression rate was 108 per minute; mean compression fraction 0.68; mean compression depth 41.9 mm with ranges: <38 mm 37%, 38-51 mm 45%, >51 mm 18%. Adjusted odds ratios for survival to discharge, with depth >51mm as reference, were <38 mm - 0.69 (95% CI 0.53, 0.90) and 39-51 mm - 1.03 (0.81, 1.30). Results were similar for the intermediate outcomes of ROSC and 1-day survival. Covariate-adjusted spline curves revealed that the maximum survival was associated with a depth of 45.8 mm followed by a decline in survival by 50 mm (optimal interval 44-49 mm). We also found no differences in the spline curves between males and females. Conclusions: This study found that more than one-third of patients received very low compression depth. The optimal CPR compression depth for survival appears to be 46 mm (44-49) for both males and female adults but falls off after 50 mm. These findings conflict with the 2010 international guideline recommendations.

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)0.004
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 score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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