ArticleResuscitation2025
Implications of an individualized resuscitation strategy using continuous rhythm and physiologic status assessment during ongoing CPR.
Article in Resuscitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Closed-loop and Artificial intelligence guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation using real-time physiological signals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Current based defibrillation: an old concept revisited.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Rethinking the 2-minute rule in adult basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Real-time cerebral oximetry and outcomes during out-of-hospital resuscitation.Resuscitation · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies have proposed defibrillator biosignal algorithms which characterize cardiac arrest rhythm and physiologic status. We evaluated whether a novel, individualized resuscitation strategy that integrates multiple ECG and impedance-based algorithms could reduce CPR interruptions and better align rescuer actions with patient-specific physiology.
methodsIn a retrospective cohort of ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, observed rescuer actions (rhythm analysis, shock delivery, pulse checks, and drug therapy) were compared to hypothetical actions recommended by the proposed individualized strategy. Misdirected drug therapy was defined as either (1) epinephrine when the algorithm predicted a spontaneous pulse or (2) antiarrhythmic during predicted bradyasystole. Clinically avoidable actions included delivering a shock without restoring return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and interrupting CPR for pulse assessment when no spontaneous pulse was present.
resultsOf 390 cases, 46% survived to hospital discharge. The individualized treatment strategy achieved comparable shock decision accuracy (95% sensitivity, 98% specificity) to observed care while decreasing median CPR interruption for shock from 12 to 6 s. The individualized strategy also identified 17% of 597 epinephrine and 9% of 248 antiarrhythmic administrations as misdirected. Following 1334 ventricular fibrillation shocks, the frequency of post-shock ROSC was 4% when its predicted probability was low versus 22% when not. During 1088 pulse checks, pulse was present in 5% when predicted probability of spontaneous pulse was low versus 35% when not.
conclusionsAn individualized resuscitation strategy could improve CPR interruption, medication administration, shock delivery, and pulse assessment. Prospective evaluation is required to assess clinical benefit.
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.