Termination of Resuscitation Rules and Survival Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Author:

Smyth Michael A.12,Gunson Imogen3,Coppola Alison4,Johnson Samantha1,Greif Robert56,Lauridsen Kasper G.789,Taylor-Philips Sian1,Perkins Gavin D.110

Affiliation:

1. Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, England

2. University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, England

3. West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust, Brierly Hill, England

4. University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, England

5. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

6. School of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria

7. Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

8. Department of Medicine, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark

9. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

10. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England

Abstract

ImportanceTermination of resuscitation (TOR) rules may help guide prehospital decisions to stop resuscitation, with potential effects on patient outcomes and health resource use. Rules with high sensitivity risk increasing inappropriate transport of nonsurvivors, while rules without excellent specificity risk missed survivors. Further examination of the performance of TOR rules in estimating survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is needed.ObjectiveTo determine whether TOR rules can accurately identify patients who will not survive an OHCA.Data SourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from database inception up to January 11, 2024. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or time frame of the study.Study SelectionTwo reviewers independently screened records, first by title and abstract and then by full text. Randomized clinical trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, retrospective analyses, and modeling studies were included. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were reviewed to identify primary studies. Studies predicting outcomes other than death, in-hospital studies, animal studies, and non–peer-reviewed studies were excluded.Data Extraction and SynthesisData were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias using the Revised Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group recommendations were followed when conducting a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) statement and is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42019131010).Main Outcomes and MeasuresSensitivity and specificity tables with 95% CIs and bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were produced. Estimates of effects at different prevalence levels were calculated. These estimates were used to evaluate the practical implications of TOR rule use at different prevalence levels.ResultsThis review included 43 nonrandomized studies published between 1993 and 2023, addressing 29 TOR rules and involving 1 125 587 cases. Fifteen studies reported the derivation of 20 TOR rules. Thirty-three studies reported external data validations of 17 TOR rules. Seven TOR rules had data to facilitate meta-analysis. One clinical study was identified. The universal termination of resuscitation rule had the best performance, with pooled sensitivity of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.54-0.71), pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 20.45 (95% CI, 13.15-31.83).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this review, there was insufficient robust evidence to support widespread implementation of TOR rules in clinical practice. These findings suggest that adoption of TOR rules may lead to missed survivors and increased resource utilization.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3