Autoresuscitation after circulatory arrest: an updated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current practice in organ donation after death determination by circulatory criteria (DCD) advises a five-minute observation period following circulatory arrest, monitoring for unassisted resumption of spontaneous circulation (i.e., autoresuscitation). In light of newer data, the objective of this updated systematic review was to determine whether a five-minute observation time was still adequate for death determination by circulatory criteria. SOURCE: We searched four electronic databases from inception to 28 August 2021, for studies evaluating or describing autoresuscitation events after circulatory arrest. Citation screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We assessed certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eighteen new studies on autoresuscitation were identified, consisting of 14 case reports and four observational studies. Most studies evaluated adults (n = 15, 83%) and patients with unsuccessful resuscitation following cardiac arrest (n = 11, 61%). Overall, autoresuscitation was reported to occur between one and 20 min after circulatory arrest. Among all eligible studies identified by our reviews (n = 73), seven observational studies were identified. In observational studies of controlled withdrawal of life-sustaining measures with or without DCD (n = 6), 19 autoresuscitation events were reported in 1,049 patients (incidence 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.8). All resumptions occurred within five minutes of circulatory arrest and all patients with autoresuscitation died. CONCLUSION: A five-minute observation time is sufficient for controlled DCD (moderate certainty). An observation time greater than five minutes may be needed for uncontrolled DCD (low certainty). The findings of this systematic review will be incorporated into a Canadian guideline on death determination. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021257827); registered 9 July 2021.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".