MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4145151: In-Flight Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Automated External Defibrillator Use

2024· article· en· W4404358922 on OpenAlexaff
Mario D. Bassi, Matthew Kuchtaruk, Nina Jiang, Adrián Baranchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac arrestSudden cardiac deathAutomated external defibrillatorCardiologyInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCardiopulmonary resuscitationEmergency medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In-flight cardiac arrest (IFCA) is unique due to restricted access to equipment, healthcare providers, and isolated location in the air. This review aimed to explore the complexities surrounding IFCA on commercial flights, including the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of IFCA and the effectiveness of automated external defibrillators (AED). Methods/Results: A narrative review of the literature was conducted on MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Literature searches were completed with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Emtree terminology, and appropriate keywords. The applied terms included “sudden cardiac arrest” OR “sudden cardiac death” OR “cardiac arrest, out of hospital” OR “cardiopulmonary resuscitation” OR “defibrillators” and a combination of “aircraft” OR “aviation”. IFCA accounts for approximately 0.3% of all in-flight emergencies yet is responsible for up to 86% of all in-flight deaths. The most recent literature shows an overall survival rate from IFCA of 44%; with shockable and non-shockable rhythm survival at 53% and 35%, respectively. Table 1 summarizes reports of IFCA incidence and survival. The most impactful risk factors for IFCA included male sex (79%) and past cardiac history (48.5%). Age was not found to be a significant predictor of IFCA. Thought to be due to in-flight immobility and venous stasis, pulmonary embolisms are reportedly responsible for 2% of IFCA. AEDs have been mandated on all commercial flights with at least 1 trained attendant in the US since 2004, however, they are only recommended in many parts of the world. A study analyzing the emergency medical equipment of European airlines showed that only 65% have provided an AED for their aircraft. Studies have shown a survival of IFCA to hospital admission of up to 36% in patients that received a shock from an AED compared to 6% without an AED. Even in non-shockable rhythms, 76% of AED applications were used for monitoring purposes and assisted with ongoing treatment. Conclusion: IFCA remains a rare yet highly fatal event that is associated with male sex, past cardiac history, and pulmonary embolism risk. Availability of AEDs and trained personnel are critical factors to treat patients presenting with IFCA.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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