MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract Sat703: Challenging Convention Regarding Pediatric Non-Shockable Rhythms: Pulseless Electrical Activity and Asystole as Distinct Initial Rhythms

2025· article· en· W4415791311 on OpenAlexaff
Javier J. Lasa, Alexis Topjian, Benny L. Joyner, Yilun Li, Tian Jiang, Juan Zhao, Anne‐Marie Guerguerian, Vinay Nadkarni, Tia T. Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsystolePulseless electrical activityCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationLogistic regressionRhythmObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Asystole and PEA occur as the initial rhythm in ~85% of pediatric IHCA yet are grouped together as “non-shockable” rhythms in resuscitation research and practice. Aim: To utilize the American Heart Association (AHA) Get with The Guidelines â -Resuscitation (GWTG Ò -R) registry to identify differences in patient and resuscitation characteristics, outcomes and trends over time between pediatric patients suffering IHCA with an initial rhythm of PEA or asystole. Hypothesis: PEA and asystole are distinct initial IHCA rhythms with distinguishing features and outcomes. Methods: Observational cohort study using the prospectively collected GWTG Ò -R registry. Pediatric patients (< 18 years) with an index IHCA and initial rhythm of PEA or asystole between 2000-2023 were included. Logistic regression adjusted a priori for covariates comparing patients with PEA vs. asystole with respect to pre-arrest characteristics, resuscitation practice, and outcomes. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge (SHD). Results: We identified 9,423 pediatric patients with non-shockable rhythms, of which 5,416 (57.5%) had an initial rhythm of PEA and 4,007 (42.5%) asystole. PEA arrests occurred in a lower proportion of neonates (26.6% vs 3.6%, p < 0.0001) with mean age 6.67 days (SD=11.06) in PEA arrests vs 5.20 days (SD=9.72) in asystole arrests (P = 0.0043), more commonly in patients with an illness category surgical-cardiac (20.3% vs 12.5%, p < 0.0001) and in an ICU than asystole (70.3% vs 60.2%, p < 0.0001). The observed and adjusted trend of the outcomes for ROSC and SHD is depicted in Figure 1 (observed) and Figure 2 (adjusted) for both PEA and asystole arrests over time. After controlling for covariates, patients with asystole had lower adjusted odds of ROSC (aOR): 0.70, 95%CI 0.64–0.77 (3,656 [67.5%] PEA vs 2,168 [54.1%] asystole) and lower aOR of SHD: 0.89, 95%CI 0.81-0.99 (1,875 [34.6%] PEA vs 1,193 [29.8%] asystole). Conclusion: Pediatric patients suffering IHCA with an initial rhythm of PEA had significant differences in patient characteristics, resuscitation factors, and outcomes compared to those with asystole. PEA was associated with higher rates of ROSC and SHD, whereas asystole was more frequently observed in less-monitored settings and carried a poorer prognosis. The persistence of these differences even after adjustment underscores the need for future research to refine rhythm-specific resuscitation strategies.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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→