Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
The time-dependent yield of invasive vs. standard resuscitation strategies: A secondary analysis of the Prague out-of-hospital cardiac arrest study
Authors' conclusion
In comparison to standard resuscitation, invasive strategy cases had fewer achieve sustained ROSC, however improved overall 30-day favourable neurological outcomes. While standard resuscitation yield was limited to < 60 min, invasive protocols offer a second extended window of potential successful resuscitation.
Study context
- Population
- Refractory OHCA
- Participants
- 124 vs 132
- Comparison
- Invasive vs standard resuscitation strategy
- Invasiven = 124
- Standardn = 132reference
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Time-dependent probability of favourable outcome by resuscitation duration
Probability of favourable outcome if in refractory arrest at 30 min
min
| Outcome | Invasive | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Declined to 0% at | 77 | 60 |
Further findings
Sustained ROSC
difference −17% (−5.0 to −28)
| Outcome | Invasive | Standard | Difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favourable neurological outcome (CPC 1-2) · 30 days | 31% | 18% | 12% (2.0–23) | |
| Favourable neurological outcome (CPC 1-2) · 180 days | 31% | 22% | 9.5% (−1.3 to 20) | |
| −100102030Difference (linear scale) |
Original publication
The time-dependent yield of invasive vs. standard resuscitation strategies: A secondary analysis of the Prague out-of-hospital cardiac arrest study. Resuscitation. Published 2 August 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →