Abstract 13846: Telephone CPR is Independently Associated With an Increase in Initial Shockable Rhythms in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bystander CPR (BCPR) and telephone CPR (TCPR) are associated with improved OHCA outcomes. It has been shown that BCPR increases the proportion of patients with an initial shockable cardiac rhythm (VF/VT) when encountered by EMS. It is unknown whether TCPR does the same. Objective: To assess whether TCPR is independently associated with an increase in initial shockable cardiac rhythms during OHCA. Methods: Data from 9-1-1 audio recordings, first care EMS reports and hospital records were linked for OHCAs of presumed cardiac origin (1/2011-12/2014). Three cohorts were analyzed: TCPR, BCPR or no CPR. Using no CPR as the reference group, we assessed whether TCPR and BCPR were independently associated with initial shockable rhythms in a logistic regression model controlling for gender, event location, witness status and EMS response interval. Results: After exclusions, 2715 adult OHCA events with linked outcome data were analyzed (median age: 63; male: 66.8%; 33.3% witnessed arrest). Median response interval was 5 min. The BCPR rate (lay rescuer CPR without telephone instructions) was 24.8% and survival in this group was 15.4%. The TCPR rate (lay rescuer CPR with telephone instructions) was 40.2% and survival in this group was 11.7%. For the no-CPR group, 20.5% had an initial shockable rhythm. For the BCPR group, 34.6 % had an initial shockable rhythm. For the TCPR group, 23.2% had an initial shockable rhythm. Provision of BCPR and of TCPR were each independently associated with shockable rhythms [aOR (BCPR) = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.33-2.17, p=0.0001; aOR (TCPR) = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.04-1.63, p=0.0001]. Conclusion: The provision of both BCPR and TCPR were independently associated with an increased rate of initial shockable cardiac rhythms and an increase in survival to hospital discharge compared to no 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".