↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
241 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
831 Mendeley
Title
A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1806842
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gavin D. Perkins, Chen Ji, Charles D. Deakin, Tom Quinn, Jerry P. Nolan, Charlotte Scomparin, Scott Regan, John Long, Anne Slowther, Helen Pocock, John J.M. Black, Fionna Moore, Rachael T. Fothergill, Nigel Rees, Lyndsey O’Shea, Mark Docherty, Imogen Gunson, Kyee Han, Karl Charlton, Judith Finn, Stavros Petrou, Nigel Stallard, Simon Gates, Ranjit Lall

Abstract

Background Concern about the use of epinephrine as a treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation to call for a placebo-controlled trial to determine whether the use of epinephrine is safe and effective in such patients. Methods In a randomized, double-blind trial involving 8014 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom, paramedics at five National Health Service ambulance services administered either parenteral epinephrine (4015 patients) or saline placebo (3999 patients), along with standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of survival at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included the rate of survival until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome, as indicated by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). Results At 30 days, 130 patients (3.2%) in the epinephrine group and 94 (2.4%) in the placebo group were alive (unadjusted odds ratio for survival, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.82; P=0.02). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome (87 of 4007 patients [2.2%] vs. 74 of 3994 patients [1.9%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.61). At the time of hospital discharge, severe neurologic impairment (a score of 4 or 5 on the modified Rankin scale) had occurred in more of the survivors in the epinephrine group than in the placebo group (39 of 126 patients [31.0%] vs. 16 of 90 patients [17.8%]). Conclusions In adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of 30-day survival than the use of placebo, but there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome because more survivors had severe neurologic impairment in the epinephrine group. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN73485024 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,475 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 831 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 831 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 148 18%
Student > Bachelor 118 14%
Researcher 107 13%
Student > Master 78 9%
Student > Postgraduate 73 9%
Other 186 22%
Unknown 121 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 473 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 94 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 1%
Other 57 7%
Unknown 165 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2918. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#993
of 17,180,236 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#76
of 28,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23
of 283,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#2
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,180,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 90.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 283,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.