↓ Skip to main content

Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation at hospital arrival – survival and neurological outcome without extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
53 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation at hospital arrival – survival and neurological outcome without extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2176-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilie Gregers, Jesper Kjærgaard, Freddy Lippert, Jakob H. Thomsen, Lars Køber, Michael Wanscher, Christian Hassager, Helle Søholm

Abstract

The prognosis in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at hospital arrival is often considered dismal. The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for perfusion enhancement during resuscitation has shown variable results. We aimed to investigate outcome in refractory OHCA patients managed conservatively without use of eCPR. We included consecutive OHCA patients with refractory arrest or prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in the Copenhagen area in 2002-2011. A total of 3992 OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts were included; in 2599, treatment was terminated prehospital, and 1393 (35%) were brought to the hospital either with ROSC (n = 1285, 92%) or with refractory OHCA (n = 108, 8%). Of patients brought in with refractory OHCA, 56 (52%) achieved ROSC in the emergency department. There were no differences between patients with refractory OHCA or prehospital ROSC with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, or etiology of OHCA. Time to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival was similar, whereas time to ROSC (when ROSC was achieved) was longer in refractory OHCA patients (EMS, 6 (5-9] vs. 7 [5-10] min, p = 0.8; ROSC, 15 [9-22] vs. 27 [20-41] min, p < 0.001). Independent factors associated with transport with refractory OHCA instead of prehospital termination of therapy were OHCA in public (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8]; p < 0.001), witnessed OHCA (OR, 3.7 [2.0-7.1]; p < 0.001), shockable rhythm (OR, 3.0 [1.9-4.7]; p < 0.001), younger age (OR, 1.2 [1.1-1.2]; p < 0.001), and later calendar year (OR, 1.4 [1.2-1.6]; p < 0.001). Thirty-day survival was 20% in patients with refractory OHCA compared with 42% in patients with prehospital ROSC (p < 0.001). Four of 28 refractory OHCA patients with duration of resuscitation > 60 min achieved ROSC. No difference in favorable neurological outcome in patients surviving to discharge was found (prehospital ROSC 84% vs. refractory OHCA 86%; p = 0.7). Survival after refractory OHCA with ongoing CPR at hospital arrival was significantly lower than among patients with prehospital ROSC. Despite a lower survival, the majority of survivors with both refractory OHCA and prehospital ROSC were discharged with a similar degree of favorable neurological outcome, indicating that continued efforts in spite of refractory OHCA are not in vain and may still lead to favorable outcome even without eCPR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 24 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2020.
All research outputs
#967,699
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#748
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,875
of 352,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.