Hospital Variation in the Utilization and Implementation of Targeted Temperature Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Targeted temperature management (TTM) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with improved functional survival and is a class I recommendation in resuscitation guidelines. However, patterns of utilization of TTM and adherence to recommended TTM guidelines in contemporary practice are unknown. Methods and Results In a multicenter, prospective cohort of consecutive adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium in 2012 to 2015, we identified all adults (≥18 years) who were potential candidates for TTM. Of 37 898 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients at 186 hospitals across 10 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium sites, 8313 survived for ≥4 hours after hospital arrival, of which, 2878 (34.6%) received TTM. Mean age was 61.5 years and 36.3% were women. Median hospital rate of TTM use was 27% (interquartile range [IQR]: 14%, 45%), with an over 2-fold difference across sites after accounting for differences in presentation characteristics (median odds ratio, 2.10 [1.83-2.26]). Notably, TTM utilization decreased during the study period (57.5% [2012] to 26.5% [2015], P<0.001) including among shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (73.4% to 46.3%, P<0.001). When administered, the median rate of deviation from one or more recommended practices was 60% (IQR: 40%, 78%). The median rate for delayed onset of TTM was 13% (IQR: 0%, 25%), varying by 70% for identical patients across 2 randomly chosen hospitals (median odds ratio 1.70 [1.39-1.97]). Similarly, the median rate for TTM <24 hours was 20% (IQR: 0%, 34%) and for achieved temperature <32°C was 18% (IQR: 0%, 39%), with marked variation across sites (median odds ratios of 1.44 [1.18-1.64] and 1.98 [1.62-2.31], respectively). Conclusions There has been a substantial decline in the utilization of TTM with significant variation in its real-world implementation. Further standardization of contemporary post-resuscitation practices, like TTM, is critical to ensure that their potential survival benefit is realized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".