MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18304: Are Prolonged Resuscitation Efforts Worthwhile? Patient Outcomes by Time to Restoration of Spontaneous Circulation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients

2015· article· en· W2885518553 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Kragholm, Monique Anderson, Carolina Malta Hansen, Phillip J. Schulte, Michael C. Kurz, Emil Loldrup Fosbøl, Shahzleen Rajan, Mads Wissenberg, Ian G. Stiell, Graham Nichol, Eric D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReturn of spontaneous circulationCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationQuartileEmergency medical servicesEmergency medicineInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: How long resuscitation attempts should be continued before termination of efforts is not clear in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We studied outcomes in patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) across quartiles of time from 9-1-1 call to ROSC. Hypothesis: Survival with favorable neurological outcome is seen in all time intervals from 9-1-1 call to ROSC. Methods: Using data from Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation clinical trials: IMpedance valve and an Early vs. Delayed analysis (PRIMED) available via National Institute of Health, patients with ROSC not witnessed by the emergency medical service (EMS) were identified and grouped by quartiles of time from 9-1-1 call to ROSC. We defined favorable neurological outcome as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of ≤3. Results: Included were 3,431 OHCA patients with ROSC. Median time from 9-1-1 call to ROSC was 22.8 min (25%-75% 17 min–29.2 min); 953 (27.8%) survived to discharge (20.4% mRS ≤3). Significant survival and favorable neurological outcome were seen in each quartile (Figure). In patients who received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), survival rates were 60.9%, 33.2%, 18.3% and 11.1% across quartiles of time to ROSC versus (vs.) 51.5%, 25.6%, 13.3% and 8.9% in patients without bystander CPR; corresponding rates of favorable neurological outcome were 50.7%, 23.8%, 12.2% and 9.1% vs. 40.1%, 16.6%, 8% and 4.8%. Correspondingly, survival rates in defibrillated patients were 70.1%, 45.9%, 25.5% and 16.4% vs. 36.3%, 9.5%, 6% and 3.4% in non-defibrillated patients; corresponding rates of favorable neurological outcome were 59.8%, 33.4%, 18.3% and 11.4% vs. 24.4%, 4.1%, 1.9% and 1.8%. Conclusions: Survival with favorable neurological outcome was seen in all quartiles of time to ROSC, even in cases without bystander CPR or shocks delivered. This suggests that EMS personnel should not terminate resuscitation efforts too early.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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