Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City.
Center for Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa.
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2010403. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10403.
Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest depends on 2 distinct phases: responsiveness and quality of the hospital code team (ie, acute resuscitation phase) and intensive and specialty care expertise (ie, postresuscitation phase). Understanding the association of these 2 phases with overall survival has implications for design of in-hospital cardiac arrest quality measures.
To determine whether hospital-level rates of acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival are associated with overall risk-standardized survival to discharge for in-hospital cardiac arrest.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational cohort study included 86 426 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2018, recruited from 290 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry.
Risk-adjusted rates of acute resuscitation survival, defined as return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and postresuscitation survival, defined as survival to discharge among patients achieving return of spontaneous circulation.
The primary outcome was overall risk-standardized survival rate (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest calculated using a previously validated model. The correlation between a hospital's overall RSSR and risk-adjusted rates of acute resuscitation and postresuscitation survival were examined.
Of 86 426 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, the median age was 67.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56.0-76.0 years); 50 665 (58.6%) were men, and 71 811 (83.1%) had an initial nonshockable cardiac arrest rhythm. The median RSSR was 25.1% (IQR, 21.9%-27.7%). The median risk-adjusted acute resuscitation survival was 72.4% (IQR, 67.9%-76.9%), and risk-adjusted postresuscitation survival was 34.0% (IQR, 31.5%-37.7%). Although a hospital's RSSR was correlated with survival during both phases, the correlation with postresuscitation survival (ρ, 0.90; P < .001) was stronger compared with the correlation with acute resuscitation survival (ρ, 0.50; P < .001). Of note, there was no correlation between risk-adjusted acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival (ρ, 0.09; P = .11). Compared with hospitals in the lowest RSSR quartile, hospitals in the highest RSSR quartile had higher rates of acute resuscitation survival (75.4% in quartile 4 vs 66.8% in quartile 1; P < .001) and postresuscitation survival (40.3% in quartile 4 vs 28.7% in quartile 1; P < .001), but the magnitude of difference was larger with postresuscitation survival.
The findings suggest that hospitals that excel in overall in-hospital cardiac arrest survival, in general, excel in either acute resuscitation or postresuscitation care but not both; efforts to strengthen postresuscitation care may offer additional opportunities to improve in-hospital cardiac arrest survival.
院内心搏骤停后的存活率取决于两个不同阶段:医院代码团队的反应能力和质量(即急性复苏阶段)以及强化和专业护理专业知识(即复苏后阶段)。了解这两个阶段与整体存活率的关系,对设计院内心搏骤停质量措施具有重要意义。
确定医院水平的急性复苏存活率和复苏后存活率是否与院内心搏骤停患者的整体风险标准化出院存活率相关。
设计、地点和参与者:这项观察性队列研究纳入了 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间,来自参与 Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation 注册中心的 290 家医院的 86426 例院内心搏骤停患者。
急性复苏存活率的风险调整率,定义为至少 20 分钟的自主循环恢复,以及复苏后存活率,定义为达到自主循环恢复的患者的出院存活率。
主要结局是使用先前验证的模型计算的院内心搏骤停的整体风险标准化存活率(RSSR)。研究了医院整体 RSSR 与急性复苏和复苏后存活率的风险调整率之间的相关性。
在 86426 例院内心搏骤停患者中,中位年龄为 67.0 岁(四分位距[IQR],56.0-76.0 岁);50665 例(58.6%)为男性,71811 例(83.1%)为初始非电击性心律失常。中位 RSSR 为 25.1%(IQR,21.9%-27.7%)。中位风险调整后的急性复苏存活率为 72.4%(IQR,67.9%-76.9%),风险调整后的复苏后存活率为 34.0%(IQR,31.5%-37.7%)。尽管医院的 RSSR 与两个阶段的存活率相关,但与复苏后存活率的相关性(ρ,0.90;P<0.001)强于与急性复苏存活率的相关性(ρ,0.50;P<0.001)。值得注意的是,风险调整后的急性复苏存活率与复苏后存活率之间没有相关性(ρ,0.09;P=0.11)。与 RSSR 最低四分位的医院相比,RSSR 最高四分位的医院具有更高的急性复苏存活率(四分位 4 为 75.4%,四分位 1 为 66.8%;P<0.001)和复苏后存活率(四分位 4 为 40.3%,四分位 1 为 28.7%;P<0.001),但复苏后存活率的差异幅度更大。
研究结果表明,一般来说,在整体院内心搏骤停存活率方面表现出色的医院,要么在急性复苏方面表现出色,要么在复苏后护理方面表现出色,但两者都不是;加强复苏后护理的努力可能会为提高院内心搏骤停的存活率提供额外的机会。