4.2 Article

The functional status and perceived quality of life in long-term survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Journal

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 206-209

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01214.x

Keywords

cardiac arrest; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; survival; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Limited data exist on how long-term survivors after pre-hospital cardiac arrest lead their lives. This study assessed functional status and perceived quality of life in patients surviving for 15 years after successful resuscitation from witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as a result of ventricular fibrillation. Methods: A 15-year follow-up study of 59 1-year survivors after successful pre-hospital resuscitation who were thoroughly evaluated at 3 and 12 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Eleven patients were still alive 15 years later. Ten of them were reached and underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological and neurological examination. Cognitive performance was evaluated and compared with individual results 15 years earlier and with an age-matched control group. The cause and time of death of the non-survivors were established. Results: All 10 evaluated long-term survivors lived at home and were independent in their activities of daily living. Their mean age was 72 years. In nine patients there was no change in the present neurological status compared with the status at 1 year after resuscitation, and in one patient it had improved. Five patients were cognitively intact. In four patients mild cognitive problems had emerged or slightly progressed. All but one were satisfied with their perceived quality of life. By the time of examination, the mean survival time for the 1-year survivors was 7 years, and the mean age at the time of death was 70 years. Conclusion: Once good outcome after cardiac arrest is achieved, it can be maintained for more than 10 years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available