MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391648275 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076019

Duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: retrospective cohort study

2024· article· en· W4391648275 on OpenAlexaff
Masashi Okubo, Sho Komukai, Lars W. Andersen, Robert A. Berg, Michael C. Kurz, Laurie J. Morrison, Clifton W. Callaway

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthSociety for Academic Emergency MedicineAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineRetrospective cohort studyDuration (music)ResuscitationCohortEmergency medicineClinical deathIntensive care medicineCohort studyMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To quantify time dependent probabilities of outcomes in patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest as a function of duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defined as the interval between start of chest compression and the first return of spontaneous circulation or termination of resuscitation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter prospective in-hospital cardiac arrest registry in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 348 996 adult patients (≥18 years) with an index in-hospital cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation from 2000 through 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability). Time dependent probabilities of subsequently surviving to hospital discharge or having favorable functional outcome if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation at each minute received further cardiopulmonary resuscitation beyond the time point were estimated, assuming that all decisions on termination of resuscitation were accurate (that is, all patients with termination of resuscitation would have invariably failed to survive if cardiopulmonary resuscitation had continued for a longer period of time). RESULTS: Among 348 996 included patients, 233 551 (66.9%) achieved return of spontaneous circulation with a median interval of 7 (interquartile range 3-13) minutes between start of chest compressions and first return of spontaneous circulation, whereas 115 445 (33.1%) patients did not achieve return of spontaneous circulation with a median interval of 20 (14-30) minutes between start of chest compressions and termination of resuscitation. 78 799 (22.6%) patients survived to hospital discharge. The time dependent probabilities of survival and favorable functional outcome among patients pending return of spontaneous circulation at one minute's duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were 22.0% (75 645/343 866) and 15.1% (49 769/328 771), respectively. The probabilities decreased over time and were <1% for survival at 39 minutes and <1% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes' duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrest quantified the time dependent probabilities of patients' outcomes in each minute of duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The findings provide resuscitation teams, patients, and their surrogates with insights into the likelihood of favorable outcomes if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation continue to receive further cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations61
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207