CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall, and its management: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are increasing numbers of reports of cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and interventions such as the use of sedative and analgesic drugs during CPR. Objectives: This scoping review aims to describe the available evidence concerning CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall and interventions such as the use of sedative and analgesic drugs during CPR. Methods: A literature search was conducted of Medline, Embase and CINAHL from inception to 21 October 2021. We included case studies, observational studies, review studies and grey literature. Results: We identified 8 observational studies including 40,317 patients and 464 rescuers, and 26 case reports including 33 patients. The reported prevalence of CPR-induced consciousness was between 0.23% to 0.9% of resuscitation attempts, with 48-59% of experienced professional rescuers surveyed estimated to have observed CPR-induced consciousness. CPR-induced consciousness is associated with professional rescuer CPR, witnessed arrest, a shockable rhythm, increased return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to hospital discharge when compared to patients without CPR-induced consciousness. Few studies of sedation for CPR-induced consciousness were identified. Although local protocols for treating CPR-induced consciousness exist, there is no widely accepted guidance. Conclusions: CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall is uncommon but increasingly reported by professional rescuers. The data available was heterogeneous in nature and not suitable for progression to a systematic review process. Although local treatment protocols exist for management of CPR-induced consciousness, there are no widely accepted treatment guidelines. More studies are required to investigate the management of CPR-induced consciousness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".