MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract Sat1201: Sequence of Epinephrine Administration and Advanced Airway Management for Adult Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2025· article· en· W4415790232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Masashi Okubo, Shunsuke Amagasa, Clifton W. Callaway, Francis X. Guyette, Christian Martin‐Gill, Sriram Ramgopal, Henry E. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpinephrineResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationAirway managementAirwayReturn of spontaneous circulationPropensity score matchingRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Epinephrine administration and advanced airway management (AAM) (i.e., supraglottic airway insertion or endotracheal intubation) are commonly performed prehospital interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The optimal sequence of these two interventions remains unclear. Research Question: Is the sequence of epinephrine administration and AAM associated with patient outcomes after OHCA? Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (aged≥18 years) with nontraumatic OHCA who received prehospital epinephrine and/or AAM during cardiac arrest in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Registry, a prospective OHCA registry at 10 sites in the US and Canada from 2011 to 2015. The main exposure was the sequence of intravenous or intraosseous epinephrine administration and AAM (epinephrine-first vs. AAM-first). The outcome was survival to hospital discharge. We used propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to address imbalances in patient demographics, arrest characteristics, and bystander interventions for each sub-cohort of initial shockable and nonshockable rhythms. Results: Of 41,659 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 67 [55-80] years), 26,535 (63.7%) were male. 8,431 patients (20.2%) had an initial shockable rhythm, and 33,228 (79.8%) had an initial nonshockable rhythm. Among patients with a shockable rhythm, 5,846 received epinephrine first, 2,272 received AAM first, and 313 received epinephrine and AAM concurrently. In patients with a nonshockable rhythm, 21,519 received epinephrine first, 10,365 received AAM first, and 1,344 received epinephrine and AAM concurrently. Using IPTW, all covariates between the epinephrine-first and AAM-first groups were well balanced (standardized mean differences <0.1). Compared with the AAM-first group, in the weighted population, the epinephrine-first group was not associated with survival to hospital discharge in the shockable rhythm (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.08), but had a lower likelihood of survival to hospital discharge in the nonshockable rhythm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87). Conclusion: In the shockable rhythm, the epinephrine-first approach was not associated with survival to hospital discharge. In the nonshockable rhythm, the epinephrine-first approach was associated with a lower likelihood of survival to hospital discharge, suggesting that the AAM-first approach might be the optimal strategy in the initial nonshockable rhythm.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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