Evidence Hub

The Time-Dependent Yield of Standard vs. Invasive Resuscitation Strategies: A Secondary Analysis of the Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Study

B. Grunau, D. Rob, M. Huptych, J. Pudil, Š. Havránek, P. Kaválková, J. Šmalcová, J. Bělohlávek

Resuscitation, 2024

18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how invasive resuscitative protocols may impact the time-dependent prognosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitations, or the relationship between intra-arrest transport and outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of the Prague OHCA Study, which randomized refractory OHCAs to "invasive" (intra-arrest transport for possible ECPR initiation) vs. "standard" resuscitation strategies (predominantly performed on-scene). Between groups, we compared outcomes of the initial resuscitation and 180- and 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (CPC 1-2), and within categories based on resuscitation duration (collapse-to-ROSC/ECPR interval). We plotted the dynamic probability of favourable outcomes with increasing durations of unsuccessful resuscitation.

RESULTS

Among invasive and standard groups, respectively: 34/124 (27%) vs. 58/132 (44%) had sustained ROSC (difference -17%, 95%CI -5.0, -28); 38/124 (31%) vs. 24/132 (18%) had 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 12%; 95%CI 2.0, 23); and 39/124 (31%) vs. 29/132 (22%) had 180-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 9.5%; 95%CI -1.3, 20). For favourable outcome cases: standard group resuscitation durations were right-skewed within the first 60 minutes; for the invasive group the distribution was bimodal, extending to 77 minutes. For invasive- and standard-treated cases, the probability of favourable outcomes among those in refractory arrest at 30 minutes was 28%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free