0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors associated with survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To determine associations between important pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Medline, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 4 February 2019. Primary, unpublished data from the United Kingdom National Cardiac Arrest Audit database.

          Study selection criteria

          English language studies that investigated pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

          Data extraction

          PROGRESS (prognosis research strategy group) recommendations and the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist were followed. Risk of bias was assessed by using the QUIPS tool (quality in prognosis studies). The primary analysis pooled associations only if they were adjusted for relevant confounders. The GRADE approach (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to rate certainty in the evidence.

          Results

          The primary analysis included 23 cohort studies. Of the pre-arrest factors, male sex (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.95, moderate certainty), age 60 or older (0.50, 0.40 to 0.62, low certainty), active malignancy (0.57, 0.45 to 0.71, high certainty), and history of chronic kidney disease (0.56, 0.40 to 0.78, high certainty) were associated with reduced odds of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Of the intra-arrest factors, witnessed arrest (2.71, 2.17 to 3.38, high certainty), monitored arrest (2.23, 1.41 to 3.52, high certainty), arrest during daytime hours (1.41, 1.20 to 1.66, high certainty), and initial shockable rhythm (5.28, 3.78 to 7.39, high certainty) were associated with increased odds of survival. Intubation during arrest (0.54, 0.42 to 0.70, moderate certainty) and duration of resuscitation of at least 15 minutes (0.12, 0.07 to 0.19, high certainty) were associated with reduced odds of survival.

          Conclusion

          Moderate to high certainty evidence was found for associations of pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors with survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42018104795

          Related collections

          Most cited references 92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nurse staffing and inpatient hospital mortality.

          Cross-sectional studies of hospital-level administrative data have shown an association between lower levels of staffing of registered nurses (RNs) and increased patient mortality. However, such studies have been criticized because they have not shown a direct link between the level of staffing and individual patient experiences and have not included sufficient statistical controls. We used data from a large tertiary academic medical center involving 197,961 admissions and 176,696 nursing shifts of 8 hours each in 43 hospital units to examine the association between mortality and patient exposure to nursing shifts during which staffing by RNs was 8 hours or more below the staffing target. We also examined the association between mortality and high patient turnover owing to admissions, transfers, and discharges. We used Cox proportional-hazards models in the analyses with adjustment for characteristics of patients and hospital units. Staffing by RNs was within 8 hours of the target level for 84% of shifts, and patient turnover was within 1 SD of the day-shift mean for 93% of shifts. Overall mortality was 61% of the expected rate for similar patients on the basis of modified diagnosis-related groups. There was a significant association between increased mortality and increased exposure to unit shifts during which staffing by RNs was 8 hours or more below the target level (hazard ratio per shift 8 hours or more below target, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.03; P<0.001). The association between increased mortality and high patient turnover was also significant (hazard ratio per high-turnover shift, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.06; P<0.001). In this retrospective observational study, staffing of RNs below target levels was associated with increased mortality, which reinforces the need to match staffing with patients' needs for nursing care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

            Intensive care unit (ICU) physician staffing varies widely, and its association with patient outcomes remains unclear. To evaluate the association between ICU physician staffing and patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE (January 1, 1965, through September 30, 2001) for the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms: intensive care units, ICU, health resources/utilization, hospitalization, medical staff, hospital organization and administration, personnel staffing and scheduling, length of stay, and LOS. We also used the following text words: staffing, intensivist, critical, care, and specialist. To identify observational studies, we added the MeSH terms case-control study and retrospective study. Although we searched for non-English-language citations, we reviewed only English-language articles. We also searched EMBASE, HealthStar (Health Services, Technology, Administration, and Research), and HSRPROJ (Health Services Research Projects in Progress) via Internet Grateful Med and The Cochrane Library and hand searched abstract proceedings from intensive care national scientific meetings (January 1, 1994, through December 31, 2001). We selected randomized and observational controlled trials of critically ill adults or children. Studies examined ICU attending physician staffing strategies and the outcomes of hospital and ICU mortality and length of stay (LOS). Studies were selected and critiqued by 2 reviewers. We reviewed 2590 abstracts and identified 26 relevant observational studies (of which 1 included 2 comparisons), resulting in 27 comparisons of alternative staffing strategies. Twenty studies focused on a single ICU. We grouped ICU physician staffing into low-intensity (no intensivist or elective intensivist consultation) or high-intensity (mandatory intensivist consultation or closed ICU [all care directed by intensivist]) groups. High-intensity staffing was associated with lower hospital mortality in 16 of 17 studies (94%) and with a pooled estimate of the relative risk for hospital mortality of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.82). High-intensity staffing was associated with a lower ICU mortality in 14 of 15 studies (93%) and with a pooled estimate of the relative risk for ICU mortality of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.75). High-intensity staffing reduced hospital LOS in 10 of 13 studies and reduced ICU LOS in 14 of 18 studies without case-mix adjustment. High-intensity staffing was associated with reduced hospital LOS in 2 of 4 studies and ICU LOS in both studies that adjusted for case mix. No study found increased LOS with high-intensity staffing after case-mix adjustment. High-intensity vs low-intensity ICU physician staffing is associated with reduced hospital and ICU mortality and hospital and ICU LOS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association between frailty and short- and long-term outcomes among critically ill patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

              Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome characterized by loss of physiologic and cognitive reserves that confers vulnerability to adverse outcomes. We determined the prevalence, correlates and outcomes associated with frailty among adults admitted to intensive care. We prospectively enrolled 421 critically ill adults aged 50 or more at 6 hospitals across the province of Alberta. The primary exposure was frailty, defined by a score greater than 4 on the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events, 1-year mortality and quality of life. The prevalence of frailty was 32.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.3%-37.5%). Frail patients were older, were more likely to be female, and had more comorbidities and greater functional dependence than those who were not frail. In-hospital mortality was higher among frail patients than among non-frail patients (32% v. 16%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.81, 95% CI 1.09-3.01) and remained higher at 1 year (48% v. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.60). Major adverse events were more common among frail patients (39% v. 29%; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01-2.37). Compared with nonfrail survivors, frail survivors were more likely to become functionally dependent (71% v. 52%; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.03-4.89), had significantly lower quality of life and were more often readmitted to hospital (56% v. 39%; OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.22-3.23) in the 12 months following enrolment. Frailty was common among critically ill adults aged 50 and older and identified a population at increased risk of adverse events, morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of frailty could improve prognostication and identify a vulnerable population that might benefit from follow-up and intervention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: resident physician
                Role: resident physician
                Role: senior methodologist
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: head statistician
                Role: professor
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: distinguished professor
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                04 December 2019
                : 367
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [3 ]School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [5 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [6 ]Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [7 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [8 ]Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK
                [9 ]Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK
                [10 ]Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [11 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [12 ]Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: S M Fernando, Department of Emergency Medicine and Department of Critical Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada sfernando@ 123456qmed.ca (or @shanfernands on Twitter)
                Article
                fers051261
                10.1136/bmj.l6373
                6891802
                31801749
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                Product
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article