MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377011900 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101988

Intraarrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and early invasive management in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomised trials

2023· article· en· W4377011900 on OpenAlex
Jan Bělohlávek, Demetris Yannopoulos, Jana Šmalcová, Daniel Rob, Jason A. Bartos, Michal Huptych, Petra Kaválková, Rajat Kalra, Brian Grunau, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Tom P. Aufderheide

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVšeobecná Fakultní Nemocnice v PrazeUniverzita Karlova v PrazeClarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationTargeted temperature managementRandomized controlled trialRefractory (planetary science)Clinical trialExtracorporealInternal medicineResuscitationEmergency medicineReturn of spontaneous circulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) has poor outcomes. Transport to hospital followed by in-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) initiation may improve outcomes. We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of two randomised controlled trials evaluating ECPR based approach in OHCA. Methods: The individual patient data from two published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled: ARREST (enrolled Aug 2019-June 2020; NCT03880565) and PRAGUE-OHCA (enrolled March 1, 2013-Oct 25, 2020; NCT01511666). Both trials enrolled patients with refractory OHCA and compared: intra-arrest transport with in-hospital ECPR initiation (invasive approach) versus continued standard ACLS. The primary outcome was 180-day survival with favourable neurological outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1-2). Secondary outcomes included: cumulative survival at 180 days, 30-day favourable neurological survival, and 30-day cardiac recovery. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed via Forest plots. Findings: The two RCTs included 286 patients. Of those randomised to the invasive (n = 147) and standard (n = 139) groups, respectively: the median age was 57 (IQR 47-65) and 58 years (IQR 48-66), and the median duration of resuscitation was 58 (IQR 43-69) and 49 (IQR 33-71) minutes (p = 0.17). In a modified intention to treat analysis, 45 (32.4%) in the invasive and 29 (19.7%) patients in the standard arm survived to 180 days with a favourable neurological outcome [absolute difference (AD), 95% CI: 12.7%, 2.6-22.7%, p = 0.015]. Forty-seven (33.8%) and 33 (22.4%) patients survived to 180 days [HR 0.59 (0.43-0.81); log rank test p = 0.0009]. At 30 days, 44 (31.7%) and 24 (16.3%) patients had favourable neurological outcome (AD 15.4%, 5.6-25.1%, p = 0.003), 60 (43.2%), and 46 (31.3%) patients had cardiac recovery (AD: 11.9%, 0.7-23%, p = 0.05), in the invasive and standard arms, respectively. The effect was larger in patients presenting with shockable rhythms (AD 18.8%, 7.6-29.4; p = 0.01; HR 2.26 [1.23-4.15]; p = 0.009) and prolonged CPR (>45 min; HR 3.99 (1.54-10.35); p = 0.005). Interpretation: In patients with refractory OHCA, the invasive approach significantly improved 30- and 180-day neurologically favourable survival. Funding: None.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.261 · 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