L’arrêt cardiorespiratoire réfractaire : perspectives cliniques et rôle infirmier à l’urgence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’arrêt cardiorespiratoire (ACR) soudain est l’une des principales causes de mortalité chez l’adulte. Malgré l’application des protocoles standards de réanimation, le taux de survie demeure faible et diminue à mesure que les manoeuvres se prolongent. Un retour à la circulation spontanée (RCS) rapide est donc essentiel pour améliorer les chances de survie et de récupération fonctionnelle. L’ACR réfractaire se définit comme l’absence d’un RCS malgré l’application d’interventions conformes aux standards. Cet article vise à outiller le personnel infirmier d’urgence en présentant les fondements physiopathologiques de l’ACR réfractaire, les traitements conventionnels ainsi que des approches alternatives telles que le changement vectoriel, la double défibrillation, l’esmolol et la réanimation par membrane extra-corporelle. Face à un ACR réfractaire, l’équipe soignante se doit d’envisager ces options pour maximiser les chances de survie. Le personnel infirmier, par son expertise, joue un rôle central dans la prise de décision partagée en contexte critique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".