English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Studies evaluating the prognostic value of the pulseless electrical activity (PEA) heart rate in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients have reported conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the initial PEA heart rate and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. The present post-hoc cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry Version 3, which included OHCA patients in seven US and three Canadian sites from April 2011 to June 2015. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and the secondary outcome was survival with a good functional outcome. For the primary analysis, the patients were separated into eight groups according to their first rhythms and PEA heart rates: (1) initial PEA heart rate of 1-20 beats per minute (bpm); (2) 21-40 bpm; (3) 41-60 bpm; (4) 61-80 bpm; (5) 81-100 bpm; (6) 101-120 bpm; (7) over 120 bpm; (8) initial shockable rhythm (reference category). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of interest. We identified 17,675 patients (PEA: 7,089 [40.1%]; initial shockable rhythm: 10,797 [59.9%]). Patients with initial PEA electrical frequencies ≤100 bpm were less likely to survive to hospital discharge than patients with initial shockable rhythms (1-20 bpm: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.15 [95%CI 0.11-0.21]; 21-40 bpm: AOR = 0.21 [0.18-0.25]; 41-60 bpm: AOR = 0.30 [0.25-0.36]; 61-80 bpm: AOR = 0.37 [0.28-0.49]; 81-100 bpm: AOR = 0.55 [0.41-0.65]). However, there were no statistical outcome differences between PEA patients with initial electrical frequencies of &gt;100 bpm and patients with initial shockable rhythms (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.65 [95%CI 0.42-1.01]; &gt;120 bpm: AOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.37-1.39]). Similar results were observed for survival with good functional outcomes (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.60 [95%CI 0.31-1.15]; &gt;120 bpm: AOR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.50-2.28]). We observed a good association between higher initial PEA electrical frequency and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. As there is no significant difference in outcomes between patients with initial PEA heart rates of more than 100 bpm and those with initial shockable rhythms, we can hypothesize that these patients could be considered in the same prognostic category.

Association of Initial Pulseless Electrical Activity Heart Rate and Clinical Outcomes following Adult Non-Traumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest