MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract Sa101: Prehospital advanced airway management across age groups in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Registry-based cohort study from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epidemiologic Registry

2024· article· en· W4404381349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junichi Izawa, Sho Komukai, Clifton W. Callaway, Masashi Okubo

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationEmergency medicineAirway managementCohortHospital dischargeAirwayCardiopulmonary resuscitationCohort studyEpidemiologyIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emergency medical services clinicians commonly perform advanced airway management (AAM: i.e., supraglottic airway placement and endotracheal intubation) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of the treatment effect of prehospital AAM across age groups is still unclear. Aim: To determine the association between prehospital AAM and survival after OHCA, compared with no AAM, across age groups. Methods: This cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epidemiologic Registry database, a prospective OHCA registry at ten sites in the US and Canada from 2011 through 2015. Patients were stratified into ten sub-cohorts based on their first documented rhythm (shockable or non-shockable) and five age groups (0-9 years; 10-24; 25-44; 45-64; or ≥65) given the potential impact of rhythm and age on effect modification. To address resuscitation time bias, patients who received AAM during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were sequentially matched with patients at risk of receiving AAM within the same minute based on time-dependent propensity scores. Matching was performed in each sub-cohort, and the matched sub-cohorts were integrated for the main analysis. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of the 44,403 eligible patients, 39,157 (88.2%) received prehospital AAM during CPR. After time-dependent propensity score sequential matching, 29,973 who received AAM were matched with patients who had not yet received AAM at the same minute. AAM was associated with survival: 5.4% vs 4.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.30-1.51). The associations were similar toward better survival in both the shockable (RR 1.27 [95% CI 1.17-1.38]) and non-shockable (RR 1.75 [95% CI 1.53-2.01]) cohorts. There was no apparent heterogeneity of the treatment effect of AAM on survival in all age groups: 0-9 years, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.45-2.56); 10-24 years, 1.61 (1.07-2.45); 25-44 years, 1.68 (1.35-2.10); 45-64 years, 1.33 (1.19-1.48); 65 years or older, 1.40 (1.23-1.59). Conclusions: In this study of the large multicenter OHCA registry in North America, prehospital AAM was associated with survival to hospital discharge regardless of the first documented rhythm. No apparent heterogeneity was found in the associations between AAM and survival among all age groups, suggesting that both pediatric and adult populations might benefit from prehospital AAM.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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→