↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic indicators of survival and survival prediction model following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with sudden refractory cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Prognostic indicators of survival and survival prediction model following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with sudden refractory cardiac arrest
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0309-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung Woo Lee, Kap Su Han, Jong Su Park, Ji Sung Lee, Su Jin Kim

Abstract

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been considered in selected candidates with potentially reversible causes during a limited period. Candidate selection and the identification of predictable conditions are important factors in determining outcomes during CPR in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to determine the key indicators and develop a prediction model for survival to hospital discharge in patients with sudden cardiac arrest who received ECPR. This retrospective analysis was based on a prospective cohort, which included data on CPR with ECPR-related variables. Patients with sudden cardiac arrest who received ECPR at the ED from May 2006 to June 2016 were included. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Prognostic indicators and the prediction model were analyzed using logistic regression. Out of 111 ECPR patients, there were 18.9% survivors. Survivors showed younger age, shorter CPR duration (p < 0.05) and had tendencies of higher rate of initial shockable rhythm (p = 0.055) and higher rate of any ROSC event before ECPR (p = 0.066) than non-survivors. Eighty-one percent of survivors showed favorable neurologic outcome at discharge. In univariate analysis, the following factors were associated with survival: no preexisting comorbidities, initial serum hemoglobin level ≥14 g/dL, and mean arterial pressure ≥60 mmHg after ECPR. Based on multivariate logistic regression, predictors for survival in ECPR were as follows: age ≤56 years, no asystole as the initial arrest rhythm, CPR duration of ≤55 min, and any return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) event before ECPR. The prediction scoring model for survival had a c-statistic of 0.875. With careful consideration of differences in the inclusion criteria, the prognostic indicators and prediction scoring model for survival in our study may be helpful in the rapid decision-making process for ECPR implementation during CPR in the ED.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,308,452
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#588
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,360
of 315,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.