Anne V Grossestreuer1, Benjamin S Abella2, Kelsey R Sheak2, Marisa J Cinousis2, Sarah M Perman3, Marion Leary4, Douglas J Wiebe5, David F Gaieski6. 1. Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Leonard Davis Institute of Healthcare Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: agrosses@upenn.edu. 2. Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States. 4. Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 5. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scores are often an outcome measure for post-arrest neurologic function, collected worldwide to compare performance, evaluate therapies, and formulate recommendations. At most institutions, no formal training is offered in their determination, potentially leading to misclassification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 171 patients at 2 hospitals between 5/10/2005 and 8/31/2012 with two CPC scores at hospital discharge recorded independently - in an in-house quality improvement database and as part of a national registry. Scores were abstracted retrospectively from the same electronic medical record by two separate non-clinical researchers. These scores were compared to assess inter-rater reliability and stratified based on whether the score was concordant or discordant among reviewers to determine factors related to discordance. RESULTS: Thirty-nine CPC scores (22.8%) were discordant (kappa: 0.66), indicating substantial agreement. When dichotomized into "favorable" neurologic outcome (CPC 1-2)/"unfavorable" neurologic outcome (CPC 3-5), 20 (11.7%) scores were discordant (kappa: 0.70), also indicating substantial agreement. Patients discharged home (as opposed to nursing/other care facility) and patients with suspected cardiac etiology of arrest were statistically more likely to have concordant scores. For the quality improvement database, patients with discordant scores had a statistically higher median CPC score than those with concordant scores. The registry had statistically lower median CPC score (CPC 1) than the quality improvement database (CPC 2); p<0.01 for statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: CPC scores have substantial inter-rater reliability, which is reduced in patients who have worse outcomes, have a non-cardiac etiology of arrest, and are discharged to a location other than home. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scores are often an outcome measure for post-arrest neurologic function, collected worldwide to compare performance, evaluate therapies, and formulate recommendations. At most institutions, no formal training is offered in their determination, potentially leading to misclassification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 171 patients at 2 hospitals between 5/10/2005 and 8/31/2012 with two CPC scores at hospital discharge recorded independently - in an in-house quality improvement database and as part of a national registry. Scores were abstracted retrospectively from the same electronic medical record by two separate non-clinical researchers. These scores were compared to assess inter-rater reliability and stratified based on whether the score was concordant or discordant among reviewers to determine factors related to discordance. RESULTS: Thirty-nine CPC scores (22.8%) were discordant (kappa: 0.66), indicating substantial agreement. When dichotomized into "favorable" neurologic outcome (CPC 1-2)/"unfavorable" neurologic outcome (CPC 3-5), 20 (11.7%) scores were discordant (kappa: 0.70), also indicating substantial agreement. Patients discharged home (as opposed to nursing/other care facility) and patients with suspected cardiac etiology of arrest were statistically more likely to have concordant scores. For the quality improvement database, patients with discordant scores had a statistically higher median CPC score than those with concordant scores. The registry had statistically lower median CPC score (CPC 1) than the quality improvement database (CPC 2); p<0.01 for statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: CPC scores have substantial inter-rater reliability, which is reduced in patients who have worse outcomes, have a non-cardiac etiology of arrest, and are discharged to a location other than home. Copyright Â
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Lisa P Nesbitt; Graham Nichol; Justin Maloney; Jonathan Dreyer; Tammy Beaudoin; Josée Blackburn; George A Wells Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Sondra A Balouris; Ketki D Raina; Jon C Rittenberger; Clifton W Callaway; Joan C Rogers; Margo B Holm Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Gavin D Perkins; Ian G Jacobs; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Leo L Bossaert; Stephen J Brett; Douglas Chamberlain; Allan R de Caen; Charles D Deakin; Judith C Finn; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Mary Fran Hazinski; Taku Iwami; Rudolph W Koster; Swee Han Lim; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Bryan F McNally; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Koenraad G Monsieurs; William Montgomery; Graham Nichol; Kazuo Okada; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Andrew H Travers; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Alexa R Sabedra; Jeffrey Kristan; Ketki Raina; Margo B Holm; Clifton W Callaway; Francis X Guyette; Cameron Dezfulian; Ankur A Doshi; Jon C Rittenberger Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Graham Nichol; Danielle Guffey; Ian G Stiell; Brian Leroux; Sheldon Cheskes; Ahamed Idris; Peter J Kudenchuk; Renee S Macphee; Lynn Wittwer; Jon C Rittenberger; Thomas D Rea; Kellie Sheehan; Val E Rac; Keitki Raina; Kyle Gorman; Tom Aufderheide Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Véronique R M P Moulaert; Jeanine A Verbunt; Caroline M van Heugten; Derick T Wade Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-12-30 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Fokke B van Meulen; Gjerrit Meinsma; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Hans Kirkegaard; Eldar Søreide; Inge de Haas; Ville Pettilä; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Urmet Arus; Christian Storm; Christian Hassager; Jørgen Feldbæk Nielsen; Christina Ankjær Sørensen; Susanne Ilkjær; Anni Nørgaard Jeppesen; Anders Morten Grejs; Christophe Henri Valdemar Duez; Jakob Hjort; Alf Inge Larsen; Valdo Toome; Marjaana Tiainen; Johanna Hästbacka; Timo Laitio; Markus B Skrifvars Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sonya E Zhou; Carolina B Maciel; Cora H Ormseth; Rachel Beekman; Emily J Gilmore; David M Greer Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Mohammad M Ghassemi; Edilberto Amorim; Tuka Alhanai; Jong W Lee; Susan T Herman; Adithya Sivaraju; Nicolas Gaspard; Lawrence J Hirsch; Benjamin M Scirica; Siddharth Biswal; Valdery Moura Junior; Sydney S Cash; Emery N Brown; Roger G Mark; M Brandon Westover Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Thomas Hvid Jensen; Peter Juhl-Olsen; Bent Roni Ranghøj Nielsen; Johan Heiberg; Christophe Henri Valdemar Duez; Anni Nørgaard Jeppesen; Christian Alcaraz Frederiksen; Hans Kirkegaard; Anders Morten Grejs Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 2.953