MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4251494433 · doi:10.1161/circ.130.suppl_2.98

Abstract 98: The Association Between Manual Mode Defibrillation, Preshock Pause Duration and Appropriate Shock Delivery When Employed by Basic Life Support Paramedics During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2014· article· en· W4251494433 on OpenAlexaff
Sheldon Cheskes, Cathy Zhan, Adam Byers, P R Verbeek, Ian R. Drennan, Laurie J. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDefibrillationShock (circulatory)Duration (music)ResuscitationCardiologyInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pre-shock pause duration of < 20 seconds is associated with improved survival after cardiac arrest. Manual mode defibrillation has been associated with the shortest duration of pre-shock pause but is largely practiced by paramedics (EMT-P) whereas defibrillator only providers (EMT-D) routinely use the defibrillator in automatic mode. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the relationship between manual mode defibrillation, pre-shock pause duration and shock appropriateness when defibrillation is provided by EMT-P vs. EMT-D level of providers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all treated non-traumatic adult OHCA presenting in a shockable rhythm over a one year period beginning January 1, 2012. Our primary outcome measure was the proportion of manual mode shocks delivered by EMT-D’s with pre- shock pause duration of < 20 secs when compared to EMT-P’s. Our secondary outcome measures were the duration of pre-, post- and peri-shock pause and the proportion of appropriate shocks (defined as correct identification and shock delivery to patients in a shockable rhythm) delivered by either level of provider. This study had a power of 90% to detect an absolute difference of 15% between provider levels in proportion of shocks delivered with pre-shock pause duration <20 secs. RESULTS: Among 2019 treated OHCA, 335(20%) presented in a shockable rhythm. Manual defibrillation was performed in 155 (46%) of these cases (196 shocks by EMT-P, 143 shocks by EMT-D). There were no differences in the proportion of shocks delivered with pre-shock pause duration <20 secs (EMT-P 82.8% vs EMT-D 84.8%, p =.65) nor pre-shock pause duration (sec) (median, Q1, Q3); EMT-P: 12.0 (7.0,17.0) vs. EMT-D: 11.0 (5.0,17.0), p= .13 while EMT-D had shorter peri- shock pause duration (sec) (median, Q1, Q3); EMT-P: 17.0 (12.0, 23.0) vs. EMT-D: 15.0 (9.0, 22.0), p =.03. There were no differences in the rate of inappropriate shocks (EMT-P 1.0% vs EMT-D 0.7%), p=1.0. CONCLUSIONS: Manual mode defibrillation by EMT-D’s produced similar measures of pre-shock pause when compared to EMT-P’s without increasing the rate of inappropriate shocks. More widespread use of EMT-D manual mode defibrillation may have the potential to decrease shock pause duration and improve survival.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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