MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2959901207 · doi:10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.362

Abstract 362: Early Signs of Life as a Prognostic Factor for Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2018· article· en· W2959901207 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Debaty, Mathilde Nicol, Romain Aubert, Cyriel Clape, Pierre Bouzat, M. Durand, Gérald Vanzetto, Olivier Chavanon, Alice Hutin, Tahar Chouhied, José Labarère, Lionel Lamhaut

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCollège Lionel Groulx
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationRefractory (planetary science)Context (archaeology)Observational studyResuscitationAnesthesiaExtracorporealInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: After 20 to 30 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), cardiac arrest is considered as refractory (RCA). For RCA, extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) is one of the only treatments with a potential benefit on survival. Presence of gasping during CPR has been shown to be strongly associated with a favorable outcome. To our knowledge, signs of life during CPR (such as gasping, movements, pupillary response) has not been studied in the specific context of RCA treated with ECPR. Hypothesis: We assessed the relationship between survival with favorable neurologic outcomes and presence of early signs of life during or before CPR in RCA treated with ECPR. Methods: We carried out a multicenter observational study of patients with out-of-hospital RCA treated with ECPR in 3 cities in France. Primary outcome was favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days defined as CPC score ≤ 2. Signs of life were defined as gasping or recovery of normal breathing, any pupillary response or any movements during CPR. Patient selection for ECPR was decided according to french guidelines criteria such as initial rhythm, no-flow duration, expected transport time and EtCO2 > 10 mmHg. A logistic regression analysis was performed. P -values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 437 patients treated with ECPR were included with 71 (16%) patients with CPC ≤ 2 at 30 days. Signs of life were observed in 261 (59%) patients, with 136 (31%) patients presenting gasping or respiratory movement, 155 (35%) a pupillary response, and 49 (11%) movements during CPR. Overall 63/261 (24.1%) patients with signs life survived with favorable neurologic outcome vs. 8/176 (4.5%) without signs of life, p<0.0001. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with favorable outcome were: signs of life during CPR (OR 11.0, 95%CI 3.7-32.5; p<0.001), first recorded rhythm VF/VT (OR 3.4, 95%CI 1.3-8.9; P=0.011), low-flow duration per min (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00; p=0.032). Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of signs of life before or during CPR on neurological outcomes for RCA treated with ECPR. These results could help select patients with good chance of survival in whom we should not give up resuscitation efforts too soon.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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