Observational studyJAMA network open2026
No-Flow Duration and Outcomes After Cardiogenic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Older Adults.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The burden of cardiogenic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) among older adults is increasing. No-flow time is a key determinant of prognosis, and the aging brain may be increasingly vulnerable to ischemic injury during this interval. Objective: To delineate the association between no-flow duration and outcomes in older adults with cardiogenic OHCA using dynamic probability curves. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, population-based, multicenter retrospective observational cohort study used data from the All-Japan Utstein Registry from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2023. Participants included adults 65 years or older with witnessed cardiogenic OHCAs treated within Japan's nationwide emergency medical service (EMS) system. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2025, to July 7, 2026. Exposure: No-flow time, defined as the interval from witnessed arrest to initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by EMS clinicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day favorable neurologic outcome, defined as cerebral performance category of 1 or 2. Age-stratified dynamic probability curves were constructed for patients aged 65 to 74 years, 75 to 84 years, 85 to 94 years, and 95 years or older to describe the time-dependent likelihood of outcome according to no-flow duration. For each age group, the no-flow time at which the estimated probability fell below 1% with 95% CIs was identified. Results: Among 1 795 502 registry cases, 259 851 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median patient age was 82 (IQR, 75-88) years, 148 018 (57.0%) were male, and the median no-flow time was 11 (IQR, 8-15) minutes. Overall, 8711 patients (3.4%) achieved a 30-day favorable neurologic outcome. In all patients 65 years or older, the no-flow times at which the estimated probability of favorable neurologic outcome fell below 1% was 11 (95% CI, 11-11) minutes. Corresponding thresholds for favorable neurologic outcome was 14 (95% CI, 14-14) minutes for those aged 65 to 74 years, 11 (95% CI, 10-11) minutes for those aged 75 to 84 years, 2 (IQR, 0-4) minutes for those aged 85 to 94 years, and 0 (95% CI, 0-0) minutes for those 95 years or older. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older adults with cardiogenic OHCA, the no-flow time window compatible with an estimated probability of at least 1% for favorable neurologic outcome became progressively shorter with advancing age. These findings may inform resuscitation decision-making in aging populations.
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.