Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Measuring intra-arrest transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A methodological study of registry-compatible definitions
An erratum to this article was published (Resuscitation, Oct 2026 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
Compared to a direct measurement of IAT, the indirect definition using "Any ROSC" demonstrated the lowest sensitivity; however, the definition using "Sustained ROSC" showed the highest sensitivity and specificity.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with ALS-treated non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), large metropolitan EMS network, 2021–2023
- Participants
- 1,269 OHCA cases
- Comparison
- Three indirect registry-compatible definitions of intra-arrest transport (IAT) vs direct measurement (cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in progress at transport)
- Outcome
- Sensitivity and specificity of indirect definitions vs direct measurement of IAT
Methodological detailsmethodological study, registry-compatible definitions, multicentre EMS network
- Methodological study
- Registry-compatible definitions
- Multicentre EMS network
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Accuracy vs direct IAT measurement
| Test or model | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Any ROSC | 78.0% | 100.0% |
| Sustained ROSC | 98.5% | 97.0% |
| Post-ROSC Vitals | 82.4% | 97.6% |
Sensitivity
Any ROSC78.0%
Sustained ROSC98.5%
Post-ROSC Vitals82.4%
Specificity
Any ROSC100.0%
Sustained ROSC97.0%
Post-ROSC Vitals97.6%
Further findings
- IAT prevalence (direct definition)
- 37% · 472 events
ROSC on scene and transported
- Achieved ROSC on scene and transported
- 336 (26%)
- Rearrest on scene, among 200 with available data
- 75 (38%)
Original publication
Measuring intra-arrest transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A methodological study of registry-compatible definitions. Resuscitation. Published 4 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →