Development and Validation of a Clinical Score to Predict Neurological Outcomes in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.
Adult
Aged
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
/ methods
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
/ methods
Female
Humans
Japan
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
/ mortality
Random Allocation
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Time-to-Treatment
/ statistics & numerical data
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 11 2020
02 11 2020
Historique:
entrez:
24
11
2020
pubmed:
25
11
2020
medline:
15
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is expected to improve the neurological outcomes of patients with refractory cardiac arrest; however, it is invasive, expensive, and requires substantial human resources. The ability to predict neurological outcomes would assist in patient selection for ECPR. To develop and validate a prediction model for neurological outcomes of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm treated with ECPR. This prognostic study analyzed data from the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest registry, a multi-institutional nationwide cohort study that included 87 emergency departments in Japan. All adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and shockable rhythm who were treated with ECPR between June 2014 and December 2017 were included. Patients were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts based on the institutions. The analysis was conducted between November 2019 and August 2020. Age (<65 years), time from call to hospital arrival (≤25 minutes), initial cardiac rhythm on hospital arrival (shockable), and initial pH value (≥7.0). The primary outcome was 1-month survival with favorable neurological outcome, defined by Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2. In the development cohort, a simple scoring system was developed to predict this outcome using a logistic regression model. The diagnostic ability and calibration of the scoring system were assessed in the validation cohort. A total of 916 patients were included, 458 in the development cohort (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 61 [47-69] years, 377 [82.3%] men) and 458 in the validation cohort (median [IQR] age, 60 [49-68] years; 393 [85.8%] men). The cohorts had the same proportion of favorable neurological outcome (57 patients [12.4%]). The prediction scoring system was developed, attributing a score of 1 for each clinical predictor. Patients were divided into 4 groups, corresponding to their scores on the prediction model, as follows: very low probability (score 0), low probability (score 1), middle probability (score 2), and high probability (score 3-4) of good neurological outcome. The mean predicted probabilities in the groups stratified by score were as follows: very low, 1.6% (95% CI, 1.6%-1.6%); low, 4.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-4.6%); middle, 12.5% (95% CI, 12.1%-12.8%); and high, 30.8% (95% CI, 29.1%-32.5%). In the validation cohort, the C statistic of the scoring system was 0.724 (95% CI, 0.652-0.786). The predicted probability was evaluated as well calibrated to the observed favorable outcome in both cohorts by visual assessment of the calibration plot. In this study, the scoring system had good discrimination and calibration performance to predict favorable neurological outcomes of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and shockable rhythm who were treated with ECPR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33231635
pii: 2773395
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22920
pmc: PMC7686862
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2022920Références
Circulation. 2016 Apr 5;133(14):1386-96
pubmed: 26920493
BMJ. 2015 Jan 07;350:g7594
pubmed: 25569120
Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132(18 Suppl 2):S436-43
pubmed: 26472994
Circulation. 2004 Nov 23;110(21):3385-97
pubmed: 15557386
Resuscitation. 2018 Dec;133:82-87
pubmed: 30316953
Acute Med Surg. 2018 Apr 25;5(3):249-258
pubmed: 29988664
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jun 1;41(21):1961-1971
pubmed: 31670793
Circ J. 2019 Apr 25;83(5):1011-1018
pubmed: 30890669
Am J Emerg Med. 1985 Mar;3(2):120-4
pubmed: 3970767
Resuscitation. 2019 Jun;139:49-56
pubmed: 30922936
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):409-10
pubmed: 25626037
JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285(22):2864-70
pubmed: 11401607
Resuscitation. 2019 Jul;140:74-80
pubmed: 31108120
J Intensive Care. 2020 May 11;8:34
pubmed: 32426140
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 10;12(3):e0173239
pubmed: 28282398
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Dec;94(49):e2049
pubmed: 26656330
Lancet. 2008 Aug 16;372(9638):554-61
pubmed: 18603291
Resuscitation. 1990 Dec;20(3):221-9
pubmed: 1965346
Thorax. 2003 May;58(5):377-82
pubmed: 12728155
Acute Med Surg. 2017 Jan;4(1):25-30
pubmed: 28163922
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e191011
pubmed: 30924892
Crit Care. 2020 Jan 7;24(1):7
pubmed: 31910905
Resuscitation. 2019 Jun;139:76-83
pubmed: 30946922
Resuscitation. 2014 Jun;85(6):762-8
pubmed: 24530251
Circulation. 1991 Aug;84(2):960-75
pubmed: 1860248
Resuscitation. 2017 Aug;117:109-117
pubmed: 28414164
Resuscitation. 2016 Apr;101:12-20
pubmed: 26836946
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:245-7
pubmed: 25981519
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13257
pubmed: 30508912
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
Circulation. 2020 Mar 24;141(12):1031-1033
pubmed: 32202935
Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):27
pubmed: 30691512
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019 Nov;19(11):1088-1095
pubmed: 31622019
J Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;45(1):57-64
pubmed: 23623286