4.5 Article

Surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The neurological and functional outcome and health-related quality of life one year later

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 19-23

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.05.011

关键词

Cardiac arrest; Neurological outcome; Functional outcome; Quality of life

资金

  1. Helsinki University Central Hospital [EVO TYH 102010070]
  2. Stiftelsen Dorothea Olivia, Karl Walter och Jarl Walter Perklens minne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Data on long-term functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are limited. We assessed long-term functional outcome and health-related QoL of OHCA survivors regardless of arrest aetiology. Methods: All adult unconscious OHCA patients treated in 21 Finnish ICUs between March 2010 and February 2011 were followed. Barthel Index (BI), activities of daily living (ADL), accommodation, help needed and received, working status, car driving and self-experienced cognitive deficits were assessed in 1-year survivors (N = 206, 40.9% of the original FINNRESUSCI cohort) with a structured telephone interview. Health-related QoL and more complex ADL-functions were evaluated by EQ-5D and instrumental ADL questionnaires. Results: Good outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Categories 1 or 2, had been reached by 90.3% of survivors. The median BI score was 100, and 91.3% of survivors were independent in basic ADL-functions. The great majority of survivors were living at home, only 8.7% lived in a sheltered home or needed institutionalized care. Of home-living survivors 71.4% scored high in instrumental ADL assessment. The majority (72.6%) of survivors who were working previously had returned to work. Health-related QoL was similar as in age-and gender-adjusted Finnish population. Conclusions: Long-term functional outcome was good in over 90% of patients surviving OHCA, with health-related quality of life similar to that of an age and gender matched 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

4.5
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