Maya L Chan1, John A Spertus2, Yuanyuan Tang3, Monique Anderson Starks4, Paul S Chan5. 1. Pembroke Hill High School, Kansas City, MO. 2. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. 3. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, ND. 5. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Electronic address: pchan@saint-lukes.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the high incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in US hospitals, the prognosis and end-of-life decision-making patterns of a patient with a recurrent IHCA are unknown. METHODS: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 192,250 patients from 711 hospitals with an IHCA from 2000 to 2015. Patients were categorized as having no recurrent IHCA (only 1 event), recurrent IHCA (≥2 IHCAs), and recurrent out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), defined as an IHCA after an OHCA. Using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression, rates of survival to discharge and favorable neurological survival (mild or no disability) between the 3 groups were compared. Rates of de novo "do not attempt resuscitation" (DNAR) and withdrawal of care orders among successfully resuscitated patients were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 165,446 (86.1%) had no recurrent IHCA, 23,643 (12.3%) had recurrent IHCA, and 3162 (1.6%) had recurrent OHCA. Compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA were less than half as likely to survive to discharge (12.7% vs 22.1%; adjusted OR: 0.46 [0.44-0.48], P < .001) and have favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 13.1%; adjusted OR: 0.44 [0.42-0.47], P < .001). Compared with patients with recurrent OHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA also had lower rates of survival to discharge (12.7% vs 16.1%; adjusted OR: 0.81 [0.71-0.94], P = .005) and favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 8.9%; adjusted OR: 0.66 [0.54-0.81], P < .001). Despite worse survival outcomes, patients with recurrent IHCA were least likely to adopt DNAR orders within the first 24 hours after successful resuscitation compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA or recurrent OHCA (17.2% vs 18.9% and 26.6%, respectively) or withdraw care at any time (17.7% vs 24.4% and 31.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 8 patients with an IHCA has a recurrent IHCA, and these patients have worse outcomes than patients with only a single IHCA and those with an IHCA after being hospitalized for an OHCA. Despite worse survival, rates of DNAR and withdrawal of care were lowest for patients with recurrent IHCA. These findings provide important prognostic information for clinicians caring for patients with recurrent IHCA and suggest the need to better align resuscitation and end-of-life decisions with patients' prognoses after IHCA.
BACKGROUND: Despite the high incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in US hospitals, the prognosis and end-of-life decision-making patterns of a patient with a recurrent IHCA are unknown. METHODS: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 192,250 patients from 711 hospitals with an IHCA from 2000 to 2015. Patients were categorized as having no recurrent IHCA (only 1 event), recurrent IHCA (≥2 IHCAs), and recurrent out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), defined as an IHCA after an OHCA. Using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression, rates of survival to discharge and favorable neurological survival (mild or no disability) between the 3 groups were compared. Rates of de novo "do not attempt resuscitation" (DNAR) and withdrawal of care orders among successfully resuscitated patients were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 165,446 (86.1%) had no recurrent IHCA, 23,643 (12.3%) had recurrent IHCA, and 3162 (1.6%) had recurrent OHCA. Compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA were less than half as likely to survive to discharge (12.7% vs 22.1%; adjusted OR: 0.46 [0.44-0.48], P < .001) and have favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 13.1%; adjusted OR: 0.44 [0.42-0.47], P < .001). Compared with patients with recurrent OHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA also had lower rates of survival to discharge (12.7% vs 16.1%; adjusted OR: 0.81 [0.71-0.94], P = .005) and favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 8.9%; adjusted OR: 0.66 [0.54-0.81], P < .001). Despite worse survival outcomes, patients with recurrent IHCA were least likely to adopt DNAR orders within the first 24 hours after successful resuscitation compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA or recurrent OHCA (17.2% vs 18.9% and 26.6%, respectively) or withdraw care at any time (17.7% vs 24.4% and 31.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 8 patients with an IHCA has a recurrent IHCA, and these patients have worse outcomes than patients with only a single IHCA and those with an IHCA after being hospitalized for an OHCA. Despite worse survival, rates of DNAR and withdrawal of care were lowest for patients with recurrent IHCA. These findings provide important prognostic information for clinicians caring for patients with recurrent IHCA and suggest the need to better align resuscitation and end-of-life decisions with patients' prognoses after IHCA.
Authors: R O Cummins; D Chamberlain; M F Hazinski; V Nadkarni; W Kloeck; E Kramer; L Becker; C Robertson; R Koster; A Zaritsky; L Bossaert; J P Ornato; V Callanan; M Allen; P Steen; B Connolly; A Sanders; A Idris; S Cobbe Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Raina M Merchant; Lin Yang; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni; Graham Nichol; Brendan G Carr; Nandita Mitra; Steven M Bradley; Benjamin S Abella; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Timothy J Fendler; John A Spertus; Kevin F Kennedy; Lena M Chen; Sarah M Perman; Paul S Chan Journal: JAMA Date: 2015 Sep 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ian Jacobs; Vinay Nadkarni; Jan Bahr; Robert A Berg; John E Billi; Leo Bossaert; Pascal Cassan; Ashraf Coovadia; Kate D'Este; Judith Finn; Henry Halperin; Anthony Handley; Johan Herlitz; Robert Hickey; Ahamed Idris; Walter Kloeck; Gregory Luke Larkin; Mary Elizabeth Mancini; Pip Mason; Gregory Mears; Koenraad Monsieurs; William Montgomery; Peter Morley; Graham Nichol; Jerry Nolan; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey Perlman; Michael Shuster; Petter Andreas Steen; Fritz Sterz; James Tibballs; Sergio Timerman; Tanya Truitt; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mary Ann Peberdy; Joseph P Ornato; G Luke Larkin; R Scott Braithwaite; T Michael Kashner; Scott M Carey; Peter A Meaney; Liyi Cen; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amy H Praestgaard; Robert A Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul S Chan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Bradley G Hammill; Lesley H Curtis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Saket Girotra; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Paul S Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary Ann Peberdy; William Kaye; Joseph P Ornato; Gregory L Larkin; Vinay Nadkarni; Mary Elizabeth Mancini; Robert A Berg; Graham Nichol; Tanya Lane-Trultt Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Mina Attin; Simeon Abiola; Rijul Magu; Spencer Rosero; Michael Apostolakos; Christine M Groth; Robert Block; C D Joey Lin; Orna Intrator; Deborah Hurley; Kimberly Arcoleo Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Talal Alnabelsi; Rahul Annabathula; Julie Shelton; Marc Paranzino; Sarah Price Faulkner; Matthew Cook; Adam J Dugan; Sethabhisha Nerusu; Susan S Smyth; Vedant A Gupta Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-11-07