Outcomes of in‐hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with end‐stage liver disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There have been improving survival trends after in-hospital cardiac arrest for the general population, but there is limited information on the outcomes of hospitalized patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) who undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We aimed to examine survival to hospital discharge after receipt of in-hospital CPR in patients with ESLD using a nationally representative sample. METHODS: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2006 to 2014 to identify adult patients who underwent in-hospital CPR. Using multivariate modelling, we compared survival to hospital discharge for patients with ESLD to those without ESLD. We also compared outcomes of patients with ESLD to patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: A total of 177 533 patients underwent in-hospital CPR, of which 1474 (0.8%) had ESLD. Patients with ESLD had lower rates of survival to hospital discharge compared to patients without ESLD (10.7% vs 28.6%, P < 0.01). In multivariate modelling, ESLD was significantly associated with lower odds of survival to hospital discharge after in-hospital CPR (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28-0.44, P < 0.01). Among survivors of in-hospital CPR, ESLD patients had a significantly lower chance of discharge to home compared to patients without ESLD (3.2% vs 8.0%, P < 0.05). Patients with ESLD also had lower rates of survival to hospital discharge compared to those with metastatic cancer (10.7% vs 15.5%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes are poor after in-hospital CPR in patients with ESLD and are worse than for patients with metastatic cancer. The current analysis can be used to inform goals of care discussions for patients with ESLD.
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 | 0.000 | 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".