MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362553776 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005846

The Effect of Time to Treatment With Antiarrhythmic Drugs on Survival and Neurological Outcomes in Shock Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2023· article· en· W4362553776 on OpenAlexaff
Mahbod Rahimi, Paul Dorian, Sheldon Cheskes, Gerald Lebovic, Steve Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Shock (circulatory)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Examining the association of time to treatment (drug or placebo) with survival to hospital discharge and neurologic outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine, Placebo randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Emergency medical services enrolled patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at multiple North American sites. PATIENTS: Adults with nontraumatic OHCA and an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia refractory to at least one defibrillation attempt were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used logistic regression to examine the association of time to treatment with survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurologic status at discharge (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 3) for the three treatment groups including an interaction term between treatment and time to treatment to determine the effect of time on treatment effects. Time to treatment data were available for 2,994 out of 3,026 patients (99%). The proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge decreased as time to drug administration increased, in amiodarone (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93 per min), lidocaine (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96), and placebo (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93). Comparing amiodarone to placebo, there was improved survival at all times of drug administration (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65). Comparing lidocaine to placebo, survival was not different with shorter times to drug administration (< 11 min), whereas survival was higher with lidocaine at longer times to drug administration with an interaction between treatment effect and time to treatment (p = 0.048). Survival with good neurologic outcome showed similar results for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and favorable neurologic outcomes decreased with longer times to drug administration. Amiodarone improved survival at all time points whereas lidocaine improved survival only at later time points, compared with placebo.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207