ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Clinical Validation of Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP) Score and MIRACLE2 Score to Predict Neurologic Outcomes after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction performance of scoring systems after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Combined MIRACLE2 and CAHP Scores Enhance Mortality Prediction in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest With STEMI.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- MIRACLE2 score validation for neuroprognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a district general hospital experience.Open heart · 2025Article
- Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research progress and challenges in Lithuania.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Bayesian network predicted variables for good neurological outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.PloS one · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a challenge for emergency physicians, given the poor prognosis. In 2020, MIRACLE2, a new and easier to apply score, was established to predict the neurological outcome of OHCA. Objective. The aim of this study is to compare the discrimination of MIRACLE2 score with cardiac arrest hospital prognosis (CAHP) score for OHCA neurologic outcomes. Methods. This retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2019. Adult patients (>17 years) with cardiac arrest who were brought to the hospital by an emergency medical service crew were included. Deaths due to trauma, burn, drowning, resuscitation not initiated due to pre-ordered “do not resuscitate” orders, and patients who did not achieve return of spontaneous circulation were excluded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with Youden Index was performed to calculate optimal cut-off values for both scores. Results. Overall, 200 adult OHCA cases were analyzed. The threshold of the MIRACLE2 score for favorable neurologic outcomes was 5.5, with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.70 (0.61−0.80, p < 0.001); the threshold of the CAHP score was 223.4, with an AUC of 0.77 (0.68−0.86, p < 0.001). On setting the MIRACLE2 score cut-off value, we documented 64.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.9−71.9%), 66.7.0% specificity (95% CI, 48.2−82.0%), 90.8% positive predictive value (PPV; 95% CI, 85.6−94.2%), and 27.2% negative predictive value (NPV; 95% CI, 21.4−33.9%). On establishing a CAHP cut-off value, we observed 68.2% sensitivity (95% CI, 60.2−75.5%), 80.6% specificity (95% CI, 62.5−92.6%), 94.6% PPV (95% CI, 88.6%−98.0%), and 33.8% NPV (95% CI, 23.2−45.7%) for unfavorable neurologic outcomes. Conclusions. The CAHP score demonstrated better discrimination than the MIRACLE2 score, affording superior sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV; however, the CAHP score remains relatively difficult to apply. Further studies are warranted to establish scores with better discrimination and ease of application.
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.