This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ebell, M. H. Articles by Drader-Wilcox, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ebell, M. H. Articles by Drader-Wilcox, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

James A. Kruse, MD

Mindy Smith, MD, MS

Jeanne Novak, RN

Joelle Drader-Wilcox

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)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 2, 171-177 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. van Walraven, A. J. Forster, D. C. Parish, F. C. Dane, K. M. D. Chandra, M. D. Durham, C. Whaley, and I. Stiell Validation of a Clinical Decision Aid to Discontinue In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitations JAMA, March 28, 2001; 285(12): 1602 - 1606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. de Vos, R. W. Koster, R. J. de Haan, H. Oosting, P. A. van der Wouw, and A. J. Lampe-Schoenmaeckers In-hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prearrest Morbidity and Outcome Arch Intern Med, April 26, 1999; 159(8): 845 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]