Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of two predictive instruments

Shaun O'Keeffe, Mark H. Ebell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare two clinical predictive rules, the pre-arrest-morbidity (PAM) index and the prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score, which predict failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The study population consisted of 274 consecutive adult patients who underwent CPR at University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland over a 2-year period. The PAM and PAR scores were calculated from the most recent data available for each variable prior to cardiac arrest. Performance of the predictive scores was compared using Student's t-test, Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves where appropriate. The PAM index identified 23 patients with a score >4, while the PAR score identified 59 patients with a score > 5, none of whom survived. The sensitivity of the PAR score for the prediction of failure to survive was 23.7%, while that of the PAM index was 9.2%; neither index incorrectly identified a patient as a non-survivor who eventually survived. The PAR score also had a greater area under the ROC curve, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). In summary, the PAR score performed better than the PAM index in the identification of patients who are unlikely to survive following CPR. Although further confirmation is necessary, it may provide useful prognostic information to physicians and patients involved with decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)21-25
Number of pages5
JournalResuscitation
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1994

Fingerprint

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Resuscitation
Morbidity
ROC Curve
Resuscitation Orders
Chi-Square Distribution
Heart Arrest
Ireland
Students
Physicians
Population

Keywords

  • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • Decision support
  • Prognosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation : comparison of two predictive instruments. / O'Keeffe, Shaun; Ebell, Mark H.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.01.1994, p. 21-25.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8a05cd7eb705439b98b695f9969d9291,
title = "Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of two predictive instruments",
abstract = "The purpose of this study is to compare two clinical predictive rules, the pre-arrest-morbidity (PAM) index and the prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score, which predict failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The study population consisted of 274 consecutive adult patients who underwent CPR at University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland over a 2-year period. The PAM and PAR scores were calculated from the most recent data available for each variable prior to cardiac arrest. Performance of the predictive scores was compared using Student's t-test, Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves where appropriate. The PAM index identified 23 patients with a score >4, while the PAR score identified 59 patients with a score > 5, none of whom survived. The sensitivity of the PAR score for the prediction of failure to survive was 23.7{\%}, while that of the PAM index was 9.2{\%}; neither index incorrectly identified a patient as a non-survivor who eventually survived. The PAR score also had a greater area under the ROC curve, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). In summary, the PAR score performed better than the PAM index in the identification of patients who are unlikely to survive following CPR. Although further confirmation is necessary, it may provide useful prognostic information to physicians and patients involved with decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders.",
keywords = "Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Decision support, Prognosis",
author = "Shaun O'Keeffe and Ebell, {Mark H.}",
year = "1994",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/0300-9572(94)90050-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "21--25",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

T2 - comparison of two predictive instruments

AU - O'Keeffe, Shaun

AU - Ebell, Mark H.

PY - 1994/1/1

Y1 - 1994/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this study is to compare two clinical predictive rules, the pre-arrest-morbidity (PAM) index and the prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score, which predict failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The study population consisted of 274 consecutive adult patients who underwent CPR at University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland over a 2-year period. The PAM and PAR scores were calculated from the most recent data available for each variable prior to cardiac arrest. Performance of the predictive scores was compared using Student's t-test, Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves where appropriate. The PAM index identified 23 patients with a score >4, while the PAR score identified 59 patients with a score > 5, none of whom survived. The sensitivity of the PAR score for the prediction of failure to survive was 23.7%, while that of the PAM index was 9.2%; neither index incorrectly identified a patient as a non-survivor who eventually survived. The PAR score also had a greater area under the ROC curve, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). In summary, the PAR score performed better than the PAM index in the identification of patients who are unlikely to survive following CPR. Although further confirmation is necessary, it may provide useful prognostic information to physicians and patients involved with decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders.

AB - The purpose of this study is to compare two clinical predictive rules, the pre-arrest-morbidity (PAM) index and the prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score, which predict failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The study population consisted of 274 consecutive adult patients who underwent CPR at University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland over a 2-year period. The PAM and PAR scores were calculated from the most recent data available for each variable prior to cardiac arrest. Performance of the predictive scores was compared using Student's t-test, Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves where appropriate. The PAM index identified 23 patients with a score >4, while the PAR score identified 59 patients with a score > 5, none of whom survived. The sensitivity of the PAR score for the prediction of failure to survive was 23.7%, while that of the PAM index was 9.2%; neither index incorrectly identified a patient as a non-survivor who eventually survived. The PAR score also had a greater area under the ROC curve, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). In summary, the PAR score performed better than the PAM index in the identification of patients who are unlikely to survive following CPR. Although further confirmation is necessary, it may provide useful prognostic information to physicians and patients involved with decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders.

KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - Decision support

KW - Prognosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028094755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028094755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0300-9572(94)90050-7

DO - 10.1016/0300-9572(94)90050-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 7809481

AN - SCOPUS:0028094755

VL - 28

SP - 21

EP - 25

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

IS - 1

ER -