Abstract 235: The Association Between No-Flow Interval and Neurological Outcomes in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Implications for Rescuer Response, Initiating Resuscitation, and ECPR Candidacy Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The benefits of early CPR are evident, however the relationship between the no-flow interval and neurological outcomes may assist clinicians with resuscitation management. Methods: We examined emergency medical system-treated non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from two clinical trials (PRIMED and CCC; 2006-2015), including only bystander witnessed cases without bystander resuscitation. We created a subgroup to simulate ECPR-treated cases (witnessed, age ≤65, non-asystole initial rhythm, and ROSC >30 minutes). We fit an adjusted logistic regression model to estimate the relationship between the “no-flow” interval (911 call-to-initiation of CPR) and favorable neurological outcome (MRS ≤3) at hospital discharge, and created a cubic spline curve. Results: Of 43,593 trial cases, 7299 were included; 616 (8.4%; 95% CI 7.8-9.1%) favourable neurological outcomes. The no-flow interval (per minute) was associated favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91). The adjusted probability of a favorable neurological outcome decreased by 0.52% (95% CI 0.39-0.65) per no-flow minute. No patients (0%; 1-sided 97.5% CI 0-0.051%) had both a no-flow duration >20 minutes and a favorable neurological outcome. In the ECPR group, 15 (9.9%; 95% CI 5.1-15%) had favourable neurological outcomes; 0/152 (0%; 1-sided 97.5% CI 0-2.4%) had both a no-flow interval >10 minutes and a favourable neurological outcome. Conclusions: The odds of a favorable neurological outcome decrease as the no-flow interval increases, highlighting the urgency of rescuer response. We found no favorable outcomes among cases with >20 minutes of no-flow duration, which may assist providers with decisions of starting or terminating resuscitation. Among ECPR-eligible cases with prolonged resuscitative efforts there were no favourable neurological outcomes among those with a no flow-interval >10 minutes, which may assist with ECPR candidacy assessment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".