4.2 Review

Pre-arrest predictors of failure to survive after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 505-515

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmr023

关键词

Ageing; cardiology; meta-analysis; palliative care; systematic review

资金

  1. JAMA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. We searched PubMed for studies published since 1985 and bibliographies of previous meta-analyses. We included studies with predominantly adult patients, limited to in-hospital arrest, using an explicit definition of cardiopulmonary arrest and CPR and reporting survival to discharge by at least one pre-arrest variable. A total of 35 studies were included in the final analysis. Inclusion criteria, design elements and results were abstracted in parallel by both investigators. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results. The rate of survival to discharge was 17.5%; we found a trend towards increasing survival in more recent studies. Metastatic malignancy [odds ratio (OR) 3.9] or haematologic malignancy (OR 3.9), age over 70, 75 or 80 years (OR 1.5, 2.8 and 2.7, respectively), black race (OR 2.1), altered mental status (OR 2.2), dependency for activities of daily living (range OR 3.2-7.0 depending on specific activity), impaired renal function (OR 1.9), hypotension on admission (OR 1.8) and admission for pneumonia (OR 1.7), trauma (OR 1.7) or medical non-cardiac diagnosis (OR 2.2) were significantly associated with failure to survive to discharge; cardiovascular diagnoses and co-morbidities were associated with improved survival (range OR 0.23-0.53). Elevated CPR risk scores predicted failure to survive but have not been validated consistently in different populations. Conclusions. We identified several pre-arrest variables associated with failure to survive to discharge. This information should be shared with patients as part of a shared decision-making process regarding the use of do not resuscitate orders.

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

4.2
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