Evidence Hub

Effects of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy on long-term neurological outcome after cardiac arrest - a multicentre matched cohort study

Alice Lagebrant, Byungkook Lee, C. Youn, Claudio Sandroni, J. Bělohlávek, A. Cariou, R. Carrai, J. Dankiewicz et al.

Resuscitation, 2025

1,717 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To assess the risk of self-fulfilling prophecy from withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) in comatose cardiac arrest patients undergoing neuroprognostication.

METHODS

Post-hoc multicentre study matching adults resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, in WLST-permitting cohorts (TTM and TTM2), and non-WLST-permitting cohorts (KORHN and ProNeCA). We matched patients in a 1:1 ratio based on a propensity score, assessing the risk of WLST due to a presumed poor neurological prognosis and criteria predictive of poor neurological outcome, as outlined in the 2021 European Resuscitation Council/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ERC/ESICM) guidelines. Functional outcome was compared at six months.

RESULTS

We included 1,717 patients, of whom 497 (29%) had WLST due to neurological criteria at a median of 143 hours (IQR 108-177). 303 (61%) patients with WLST retrospectively fulfilled ≥2 ERC/ESICM criteria predictive of poor outcome. No patients with ≥2 ERC/ESICM criteria had good functional outcome at six months, neither in the WLST cohort nor among the matched controls. One patient (0.3%) with an indeterminate prognosis (≤1 ERC/ESICM criteria) had a good functional outcome in the WLST cohort versus 18-26% of the matched controls. In exploratory weighted estimates, up to 18% of patients with indeterminate prognosis may have survived with a good functional outcome, if WLST had not occurred.

CONCLUSION

In patients with at least 2 ERC/ESICM criteria…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. 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. Reported size: 1,717 participants or records.

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