ArticleAcute and critical care2022
Changes in the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and after implementation of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Pediatric End-of-Life Process After the Enforcement of the Act on Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions-The Experience of a Single Children's Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- For the Universal Right to Access Quality End-of-Life Care in Korea: Broadening Our Perspective After the 2018 Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients with do-not-resuscitate and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment in a medical intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Comparison of the end-of-life decisions of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia after the enforcement of the life-sustaining treatment decision act in Korea.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Will implementation of the Life-sustaining Treatment Decisions Act reduce the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation?Acute and critical care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Act allows withholding and withdrawal of LST, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In the present study, the incidence of CPR before and after implementation of the Act was compared.
methodsThis was a retrospective review involving hospitalized patients who underwent CPR at a single center between February 2016 and January 2020 (pre-implementation period, February 2016 to January 2018; post-implementation period, February 2018 to January 2020). The primary outcome was monthly incidence of CPR per 1,000 admissions. The secondary outcomes were duration of CPR, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, 24-hour survival rate, and survival-to-discharge rate. The study outcomes were compared before and after implementation of the Act.
resultsA total of 867 patients who underwent CPR was included in the analysis. The incidence of CPR per 1,000 admissions showed no significant difference before and after implementation of the Act (3.02±0.68 vs. 2.81±0.75, P=0.255). The ROSC rate (67.20±0.11 vs. 70.99±0.12, P=0.008) and survival to discharge rate (20.24±0.09 vs. 22.40±0.12, P=0.029) were higher after implementation of the Act than before implementation.
conclusionsThe incidence of CPR did not significantly change for 2 years after implementation of the Act. Further studies are needed to assess the changes in trends in the decisions of CPR and other LSTs in real-world practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.