Abstract 18554: Patient, Cardiac Arrest and Hospital Characteristics That Predict Receipt of Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have suggested an association between coronary angiography and improved outcomes amongst post cardiac arrest patients. Our objective was to measure the association between patient and hospital-level characteristics and receipt of coronary angiography to generate hypotheses to inform a definitive trial. Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of data from 28 hospitals in Southern Ontario between March 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. We included consecutive adult patients with atraumatic, OHCA, who achieved return of spontaneous circulation, and were alive 6 hours after hospital arrival. Multi-level logistic regression was used to measure the relationship between patient and hospital-level covariates and receipt of coronary angiography, adjusted for clustering and potential confounders. Results: During the period of study, 2678 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria; mean age 66(±16), 68.3% male, 45.9% shockable initial rhythm, 84.2% comatose at hospital admission. Overall, 32.4% received coronary angiography and 21.8% received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Coronary angiography use varied from 12.7% to 63.6% across the sites. Factors significantly associated with receiving coronary angiography included ST-elevation (OR=23.31, CI95 17.64-30.80), being comatose at hospital arrival (OR=0.15, CI95 0.10-0.23), shockable initial cardiac rhythm (OR=4.87, CI95 3.70-6.41), bystander AED use (OR=2.05, CI95 1.21-3.47), EMS-witnessed arrest (OR=1.80, CI95 1.16-2.78), initiation of therapeutic hypothermia (OR=1.96, CI95 1.38-2.79), initial admission to a PCI centre (OR=3.20, CI95 1.78-5.76), male sex (OR=1.43, CI95 1.07-1.90) and age (OR=0.98, CI95 0.97-0.99). Conclusions: There is significant variability in receipt of coronary angiography after cardiac arrest. We identified several patient and hospital-level factors that contribute to this variability. Future work should determine which post arrest patients will benefit most from urgent angiography and develop and evaluate knowledge translation strategies to ensure consistent delivery of best practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".