MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 1: Statewide Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Improves after Widespread Implementation of Cardiocerebral Resuscitation

2007· article· en· W4250335341 on OpenAlexaff
Bentley J. Bobrow, Tyler F. Vadeboncoeur, Lani Clark, Vatsal Chikani, Gordon A. Ewy, Arthur B. Sanders

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsBentley (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular fibrillationCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationEmergency medical servicesAdvanced cardiac life supportReturn of spontaneous circulationEmergency medicinePopulationAsystoleAdvanced life supportInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE : To evaluate the impact of cardiocerebral resuscitation (CCR), an alternative emergency medical services (EMS) protocol, on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) survival in the state of Arizona. CCR, emphasizes 200 preshock chest compressions, a single defibrillator shock (when indicated) followed immediately by 200 postshock chest compressions, early intravenous epinephrine and delayed endotracheal intubation. METHODS : The Save Hearts in Arizona Registry and Education (SHARE) program collected Utstein style data from 38 different fire departments (FDs) servicing approximately 70% of Arizona’s population. 2671 consecutive OOHCAs, of which 1847 were adult and presumed cardiac etiology were enrolled between October, 2004 and December, 2006. The CCR protocol was implemented in 11/38 (29%) FDs and the remaining FDs 27/38 (72%) utilized standard ACLS. The primary end-point was survival to hospital discharge of all cardiac arrests and for the subgroup with witnessed arrest and ventricular fibrillation (VF) on EMS arrival. Outcomes were obtained from the Office of Vital Statistics as well as local hospitals and were compared using chi square testing; alpha = 0.05. RESULTS: 457/1847 (24.7%) patients were treated by CCR FDs and 1390/1847 (75.3%) were treated by ACLS FDs. Overall survival in the CCR group was significantly better than in the ACLS group (9.2% (42/457) vs. 3.5% (49/1390), p < 0.001). Similarly, survival for witnessed VF arrests was significantly better in the CCR group than the ACLS group (29.3% (29/99) vs. 11.1% (30/271), p < 0.001). Odds ratios were adjusted for age, gender, location, bystander CPR performed, % witnessed, % VF and EMS dispatch to arrival time. The odds of overall survival was 2.7 times higher in the CCR group compared to the overall ACLS group (95% CI 1.7,4.4), and 3.0 times higher in the CCR subgroup of witnessed VF (95% CI 1.6,5.6). CONCLUSION: Survival of patients with OOHCA in Arizona was significantly better in fire departments utilizing the cardiocerebral resuscitation protocol than in fire departments utilizing ACLS. Implementing the cardiocerebral resuscitation protocol on a large scale is feasible and saves lives.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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