Aetiology and predictors of outcome in non‐shockable in‐hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundNon‐shockable in‐hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a condition with diverse aetiology, predictive factors, and outcome. This study aimed to compare IHCA with initial asystole or pulseless electrical activity (PEA), focusing specifically on their aetiologies and the significance of predictive factors.MethodsUsing the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, adult non‐shockable IHCA cases from 2018 to 2022 (n = 5788) were analysed. Exposure was initial rhythm, while survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome. A random forest model with 28 variables was used to generate permutation‐based variable importance for outcome prediction.ResultsOverall, 60% of patients (n = 3486) were male and the median age was 75 years (IQR 67–81). The most frequent arrest location (46%) was on general wards. Comorbidities were present in 79% of cases and the most prevalent comorbidity was heart failure (33%). Initial rhythm was PEA in 47% (n = 2702) of patients, and asystole in 53% (n = 3086). The most frequent aetiologies in both PEA and asystole were cardiac ischemia (24% vs. 19%, absolute difference [AD]: 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.7%), and respiratory failure (14% vs. 13%, no significant difference). Survival was higher in asystole (24%) than in PEA (17%) (AD: 7.3%; 95% CI 5.2% to 9.4%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) durations were longer in PEA, 18 vs 15 min (AD 4.9 min, 95% CI 4.0–5.9 min). The duration of CPR was the single most important predictor of survival across all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Aetiology ranked as the second most important predictor in most analyses, except in the asystole subgroup where responsiveness at cardiac arrest team arrival took precedence.ConclusionsIn this nationwide registry study of non‐shockable IHCA comparing asystole to PEA, cardiac ischemia and respiratory failure were the predominant aetiologies. Duration of CPR was the most important predictor of survival, followed by aetiology. Asystole was associated with higher survival compared to PEA, possibly due to shorter CPR durations and a larger proportion of reversible aetiologies.