4.6 Article

Validation of the Cardiac Arrest Survival Postresuscitation In-hospital (CASPRI) score in an East Asian population

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202938

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Taiwan University Hospital [107-M3969]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Cardiac Arrest Survival Postresuscitation In-hospital (CASPRI) score is a useful tool for predicting neurological outcome following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), and was derived from a cohort selected from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry between 2000 and 2009 in the United States. In an East Asian population, we aimed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of resuscitated IHCA patients and assess the validity of the CASPRI score. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in a single centre in Taiwan. Patients with IHCA between 2006 and 2014 were screened. Results Among the 796 included patients, 94 (11.8%) patients achieved neurologically intact survival. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified factors significantly associated with neurological outcome. Six of these factors were also components of the CASPRI score, including duration of resuscitation, neurological status before IHCA, malignant disease, initial arrest rhythms, renal insufficiency and age. In univariate logistic regression analysis, the CASPRI score was significantly associated with neurological outcome (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.87); the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74-0.84). Conclusion In this retrospective study conducted in a single centre at Taiwan, we identified the common prognosticators of IHCA shared by both East Asian and Western societies. As a composite prognosticator, CASPRI score predicts outcomes with excellent accuracy among successfully resuscitated IHCA patients in an East Asian population. This tool allows accurate IHCA prognostication in an East Asian population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据