Joris Nas1, Geert Kleinnibbelink2, Gerjon Hannink3, Eliano P Navarese4, Niels van Royen5, Menko-Jan de Boer5, Lars Wik6, Judith L Bonnes5, Marc A Brouwer5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.nas@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Cardiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 3 Byrom Street, L3 3AF Liverpool, UK. 3. Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine Research, Cardiovascular Institute Mater Dei Hospital, Bari, Italy; SIRIO MEDICINE Cardiovascular Network, Italy; Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 5. Department of Cardiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Prehospital Emergency Medicine (NAKOS), Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
AIM: To minimize termination of resuscitation (TOR) in potential survivors, the desired positive predictive value (PPV) for mortality and specificity of universal TOR-rules are ≥99%. In lack of a quantitative summary of the collective evidence, we performed a diagnostic meta-analysis to provide an overall estimate of the performance of the basic and advanced life support (BLS and ALS) termination rules. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed/EMBASE/Web-of-Science/CINAHL and Cochrane (until September 2019) for studies on either or both TOR-rules in non-traumatic, adult cardiac arrest. PRISMA-DTA-guidelines were followed. RESULTS: There were 19 studies: 16 reported on the BLS-rule (205.073 patients, TOR-advice in 57%), 11 on the ALS-rule (161.850 patients, TOR-advice in 24%). Pooled specificities were 0.95 (0.89-0.98) and 0.98 (0.95-1.00) respectively, with a PPV of 0.99 (0.99-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). Specificities were significantly lower in non-Western than Western regions: 0.84 (0.73-0.92) vs. 0.99 (0.97-0.99), p < 0.001 for the BLS rule. For the ALS-rule, specificities were 0.94 (0.87-0.97) vs. 1.00 (0.99-1.00), p < 0.001. For non-Western regions, 16 (BLS) or 6 (ALS) out of 100 potential survivors met the TOR-criteria. Meta-regression demonstrated decreasing performance in settings with lower rates of in-field shocks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall high PPV, this meta-analysis highlights a clinically important variation in diagnostic performance of the BLS and ALS TOR-rules. Lower specificity and PPV were seen in non-Western regions, and populations with lower rates of in-field defibrillation. Improved insight in the varying diagnostic performance is highly needed, and local validation of the rules is warranted to prevent in-field termination of potential survivors.
AIM: To minimize termination of resuscitation (TOR) in potential survivors, the desired positive predictive value (PPV) for mortality and specificity of universal TOR-rules are ≥99%. In lack of a quantitative summary of the collective evidence, we performed a diagnostic meta-analysis to provide an overall estimate of the performance of the basic and advanced life support (BLS and ALS) termination rules. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed/EMBASE/Web-of-Science/CINAHL and Cochrane (until September 2019) for studies on either or both TOR-rules in non-traumatic, adult cardiac arrest. PRISMA-DTA-guidelines were followed. RESULTS: There were 19 studies: 16 reported on the BLS-rule (205.073 patients, TOR-advice in 57%), 11 on the ALS-rule (161.850 patients, TOR-advice in 24%). Pooled specificities were 0.95 (0.89-0.98) and 0.98 (0.95-1.00) respectively, with a PPV of 0.99 (0.99-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). Specificities were significantly lower in non-Western than Western regions: 0.84 (0.73-0.92) vs. 0.99 (0.97-0.99), p < 0.001 for the BLS rule. For the ALS-rule, specificities were 0.94 (0.87-0.97) vs. 1.00 (0.99-1.00), p < 0.001. For non-Western regions, 16 (BLS) or 6 (ALS) out of 100 potential survivors met the TOR-criteria. Meta-regression demonstrated decreasing performance in settings with lower rates of in-field shocks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall high PPV, this meta-analysis highlights a clinically important variation in diagnostic performance of the BLS and ALS TOR-rules. Lower specificity and PPV were seen in non-Western regions, and populations with lower rates of in-field defibrillation. Improved insight in the varying diagnostic performance is highly needed, and local validation of the rules is warranted to prevent in-field termination of potential survivors.
Authors: Alexander T Limkakeng; Jinny J Ye; Catherine Staton; Yih Yng Ng; Benjamin S H Leong; Nur Shahidah; Muhammad Yazid; Alexander Gordee; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Marcus E H Ong Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Nuraini Nazeha; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Alexander T Limkakeng; Jinny J Ye; Anjni Patel Joiner; Audrey Blewer; Nur Shahidah; Gayathri Devi Nadarajan; Desmond Renhao Mao; Nicholas Graves Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-03-03