Update of a Systematic Review of Autoresuscitation After Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".