IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v17y1997i2p171-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Failure of Three Decision Rules to Predict the Outcome of In-hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Author

Listed:
  • Mark H. Ebell
  • James A. Kruse
  • Mindy Smith
  • Jeanne Novak
  • Joelle Drader-Wilcox

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate three decision-support tools (the Pre-Arrest Morbidity or PAM score, the Prognosis After Resuscitation or PAR score, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation or APACHE III score) for their abilities to predict the outcomes of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The medical records of all 656 adult inpatients undergoing CPR during a two-to-three-year period in three large hospitals were retrospectively reviewed, and demographic and clinical variables were abstracted. Of 656 patients undergoing resuscitation, 248 (37.8%) survived the resuscitation attempt long enough to be stabilized (immediate survival), but only 35 (5.3%) survived to discharge. Only 11 patients had PAM scores higher than 8, none of whom survived to discharge; 131 patients had PAR scores above 8, of whom six survived to discharge. The PAR score and the APACHE III score had the greatest areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (when predicting the outcome of survival to discharge), although no individual area for either outcome was greater than 0.6. None of the decision-support tools studied was able to effectively discriminate between survivors and non-survivors for the outcomes of immediate survival and survival to discharge following in-hospital CPR. This is consistent with previous work utilizing the APACHE II score, which did not identify a threshold above which patients did not benefit from CPR. The findings for the PAR score and the PAM score stand in contrast to previous studies that found them to be potentially useful decision rules. Further work is needed to develop a decision-support tool that better discriminates between survivors and non-survivors of in-hospital CPR. Key words: resuscitation; prognosis; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; decision support; decision making. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:171-177)

Suggested Citation

  • Mark H. Ebell & James A. Kruse & Mindy Smith & Jeanne Novak & Joelle Drader-Wilcox, 1997. "Failure of Three Decision Rules to Predict the Outcome of In-hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 171-177, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:2:p:171-177
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9701700207
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9701700207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Wasson & Harold C. Sox JR & Carol H. Sox, 1981. "The Diagnosis of Abdominal Pain in Ambulatory Male Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(3), pages 215-224, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jane M. Orient & Louis J. Kettel & Janne Lim, 1985. "A Test of a Linear Discriminant for Identifying Low-Risk Abdominal Pain," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(1), pages 77-87, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:2:p:171-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.