MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914546673 · doi:10.1681/asn.2019010046

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Outpatient Dialysis Clinics: Perception of Futility?

2019· letter· en· W2914546673 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoit Imbeault, Christopher T. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationPopulationDialysisResuscitationDefibrillationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineHemodialysisEmergency departmentEmergency medical servicesMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac arrest (CA) accounts for approximately 25% of deaths in the hemodialysis (HD) population.1 Moreover, patients on HD have increased mortality with CA in comparison with the general population.2 Finally, for those patients who survive, there may be a higher rate of discharge to nursing homes and lower functional status.3 Improving outcomes after CA requires a multipronged approach, including education to provide timely cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation when appropriate and secondary preventative strategies for survivors. Intuitively, it is expected that all outpatient dialysis staff are competent to provide CPR and that they are capable of using automated external defibrillators (AEDs) as indicated. Sadly, retrospective studies thus far suggest that resuscitation efforts and deployment rates of AEDs are generally low.4 In this issue of the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Pun et al.5 aimed to provide a contemporary examination using the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival to describe the rate of CPR and outcomes in ambulatory patients having a CA in outpatient dialysis facilities. They included adult patients in the registry who had out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA; defined as apneic and unresponsive) before the arrival of emergency medical services and did not have a “do-not-resuscitate” order. The final analysis included 398 events. Surprisingly, only 81% of events had dialysis staff–initiated CPR, and 52% had dialysis staff–initiated AED application before arrival of emergency medical services (EMS). Most (66%) of the arrests presented with a nonshockable rhythm, but there was a greater proportion of shockable first rhythms (41% versus 25%) when dialysis staff were the first to install the AED. Predictors of dialysis staff–initiated CPR included patients who were men (odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.00 to 3.23), witnessed OHCA (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.59 to 6.98), and large dialysis clinics (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.08 per increase in number of dialysis stations). The only predictor of dialysis staff–initiated AED use was larger dialysis clinics. Overall, 48% survived to hospital admission, 54% of these patients survived to discharge, and of these patients, 82% had favorable neurologic status. Although this study describes the current practice pattern, it also poses multiple difficult questions. From an electrophysiologic point of view, Pun et al.5 found a predominance of nonventricular arrhythmias in their cohort (33% initial shockable rhythm). Similar findings were noted by Roy-Chaudhury et al.6 using data from implantable loop recorders. These investigators showed that the majority of clinically significant arrhythmias in patients on conventional HD are bradycardia and asystole, peaking particularly during the first dialysis session of the week and the last 12 hours before dialysis. In contrast, older retrospective studies suggested that the most common arrhythmias leading to CA are, in fact, ventricular in origin followed by asystole. In a Canadian cohort, the most common cause of CA was ventricular arrhythmias (32%) followed by bradycardia (26%).7 Taken together, these results substantiate the urgency for clinical researchers to understand the pathogenesis of CA in the HD population, especially given that modification of traditional cardiovascular risks (including coronary revascularization) have not altered the rates of sudden cardiac death in this vulnerable population. Equally concerning, one must question why one in five patients experiencing CA in the dialysis unit did not receive CPR. Furthermore, the notion of sex disparity in CPR has also been consistently observed in this publication as well as bystander CPR studies in the general population.8 The lack of staff participation in performing CPR suggests inadequate training and/or lack of comfort in delivering resuscitation in an outpatient clinic. It is also plausible that the staff may feel an element of social awkwardness for them to apply CPR or AED to patients who are women. Moreover, it is tempting to speculate that the perception of futility given the overall poor outcomes of the patient population on HD may explain the suboptimal staff participation rates of CPR. We are unable to ascertain the severity of frailty and/or overall functional status of the patient cohort that may also represent possible confounders. The data from this study are both encouraging and concerning. Indeed, it seems that rapid initiation of CPR and use of an AED are associated with better patient outcomes after OHCA. Moving forward, identification of barriers to dialysis staff–initiated CPR and AED may be done through a mixed methods study by debriefing dialysis clinic staff. Arguably, however, the most important interventions to improve outcomes are in the prevention of CA. Simplistically, modifications to the dialysis prescription (e.g., changes in dialysate composition, alteration of HD frequency and duration, and adjustment of ultrafiltration rate) are potential interventions that may affect sudden cardiac death. There is also a paucity of evidence in medical or device interventional studies on the primary or secondary prevention of CA. The difficulty in recruiting to the now terminated Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Hemodialysis Patients trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02481206) is an example of challenges facing this type of interventional study. In sum, the study by Pun et al.5 confirms that rapid initiation of CPR and AED use are associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, in reflecting on the present state of available evidence in the field, it is not surprising that one may perceive a sense of futility. We hope that our call to action will serve as a reminder to motivate awareness and future research to address this important aspect of dialysis care. Disclosures None.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→