MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245888315 · doi:10.21037/atm-21-4984

The role of head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation in sudden cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4245888315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying Kiat Tan, Ming Xuan Han, Benjamin Yong‐Qiang Tan, Ching‐Hui Sia, Claire Xin Yi Goh, Aloysius Sheng‐Ting Leow, Derek J. Hausenloy, Edwin Shih Yen Chan, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Andrew Fu Wah Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationCerebral perfusion pressureResuscitationMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiologySudden cardiac arrestCerebral blood flowAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HU-CPR) is an experimental treatment for sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), where cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in a ramped position. We evaluated whether HU-CPR improved survival and surrogate outcomes as compared to standard CPR (S-CPR). Methods: Studies reporting on HU-CPR in SCA were searched for in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to May 1st 2021. Outcomes included neurologically-intact survival, 24-hour-survival, intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CerPP) and brain blood flow (BBF). Risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE assessment tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled effects of HU-CPR at 30 degrees. Results: Thirteen articles met the criteria for inclusion (11 animal-only studies, one before-and-after human-only study, one study that utilized human- and animal-cadavers). Among animal studies, the most common implementation of HU-CPR was a 30-degree upward tilt of the head and thorax (n=7), while four studies investigated controlled sequential elevation (CSE). Two animal studies reported improved cerebral performance category (CPC) scores at 24-hour. The pooled effect on 24-hour survival was not statistically significant (P=0.37). The lone human study reported doubled return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (17.9% versus 34.2%, P<0.0001). The pooled effect on ROSC in three porcine studies was OR =3.63 (95% CI: 0.72-18.39). Pooled effects for surrogate physiological outcomes of intracranial cranial pressure (MD -14.08, 95% CI: -23.21 to -4.95, P=0.003), CerPP (MD 14.39, 95% CI: 3.07-25.72, P=0.01) and BBF (MD 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-0.27, P=0.03), showed statistically significant benefit. Discussion: Overall, HU-CPR improved neurologically-intact survival at 24-hour, ROSC and physiological surrogate outcomes in animal models. Despite promising preclinical data, and one human observational study, clinical equipoise remains surrounding the role of HU-CPR in SCA, necessitating clarification with future randomized human trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207