| Title |
ROSC rates and live discharge rates after cardiopulmonary resuscitation by different CPR teams - a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-017-0457-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tak Kyu Oh, Young Mi Park, Sang-Hwan Do, Jung-Won Hwang, In-Ae Song |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have reported that the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is closely associated with patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare patient CPR outcomes across resident, emergency medicine, and rapid response teams. The records of patients who underwent CPR at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Return of spontaneous circulation, 10- and 30-day survival, and live discharge after return of spontaneous circulation were compared across patients treated by the three CPR teams. Of the 1145 CPR cases, 444 (39%) were conducted by the resident team, 431 (38%) by the rapid response team, and 270 (23%) by the emergency medicine team. The adjusted odds ratios for the return of spontaneous circulation and subsequent 10-day survival among patients who received CPR from the resident team compared to the rapid response team were 0.59 (P = 0.001) and 0.71 (P = 0.037), respectively. There were no significant differences in the 30-day survival and rate of live discharge between patients who received CPR from the rapid response and resident teams; likewise, no significant differences were observed between patients who received CPR from the emergency medicine and rapid response teams. Patients receiving CPR from the rapid response team may have higher 10-day survival and return of spontaneous circulation rates than those who receive CPR from the resident team. However, our results are limited by the differences in approach, time of CPR, and room settings between teams. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 24% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,086,058
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#483
of 1,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,473
of 439,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.