Research on the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and its impact on outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest has been conducted by a team of researchers from various institutions.
The study found that the probability of survival decreases rapidly as CPR continues, with no heartbeat after 39 minutes resulting in less than a 1% chance of leaving hospital without major brain damage and only around 25% surviving to discharge.
Research on the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and its impact on outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest has been conducted by a team of researchers from various institutions. The study found that the probability of survival decreases rapidly as CPR continues, with no heartbeat after 39 minutes resulting in less than a 1% chance of leaving hospital without major brain damage and only around 25% surviving to discharge.
Researchers estimate survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage declines from 15% after one minute of CPR to less than 1% after 32 minutes with no heartbeat.
In-hospital cardiac arrest is a common and catastrophic medical emergency, with only around 25% of patients surviving to hospital discharge.
Studies have shown that a longer resuscitation time for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest is linked to lower odds of survival, but experts have been unable to make specific recommendations on when to stop resuscitation.
Accuracy
Researchers estimate survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest
``A person's chance of surviving while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage declines from 15% after one minute of CPR to less than 1% after 32 minutes with no heartbeat.
``A longer resuscitation time for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest is linked to lower odds of survival, but experts have been unable to make specific recommendations on when to stop resuscitation.
Researchers measured the effect of CPR duration (in minutes) on outcomes for 348,996 US adults who had an in-hospital cardiac arrest between 2000 and 2021.
gקThe main measures of interest were survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a brain performance score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability) on a 5-point scale.hק
ρ% for survival at 39 minutes and ρ% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes.
The study was published by The BMJ today.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the study found a decline in survival chances and likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage as CPR duration increased. However, this statement is misleading because the study only looked at patients who had an average CPR duration of 7 minutes or less and did not include those whose resuscitation was terminated before that point. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that longer CPR durations necessarily lead to lower survival rates or higher brain damage risks. Secondly, the article quotes a study published in The BMJ which found that studies have shown a link between longer resuscitation times and lower odds of survival for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that there are specific recommendations on when to stop resuscitation based on the findings of previous studies. In reality, experts still struggle to make such recommendations due to a lack of conclusive evidence.
The article states that survival rates decline rapidly from 22% after one minute and less than 1% after 39 minutes. However, this is based on data for patients with an average CPR duration of only 7 minutes or less.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the findings provide insights that may help guide hospital teams, patients and their families in deciding how long to continue resuscitation. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction of survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest as declining rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes.
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain A person's chance of surviving while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The researchers say the findings provide insights that may help guide hospital teams, patients and their families in deciding how long to continue resuscitation.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the author's perspective and presents a one-sided view of the topic. The language used in the article is also inflammatory and sensationalist.
> One minute after starting CPR for cardiac arrest, only 22% of patients survived with no major brain damage. After 39 minutes without a heartbeat, this percentage dropped to less than 1%. This implies that the longer someone is resuscitated, the lower their chances of survival and favorable outcome.
The article uses inflammatory language such as 'catastrophic medical emergency' and 'terrifying prospect for patients'.
The author does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on when to stop resuscitation.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest. The author is Science X which has a financial stake in the pharmaceutical industry as they are reporting on research funded by this industry.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Science X has a conflict of interest on the topic of cardiac arrest as they are reporting on research that was funded by a pharmaceutical company. The article also mentions the survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest which could be influenced by this funding.
The study found that the probability of a patient living and leaving the hospital with good or moderate brain function drops from 22% and 15%, respectively, after one minute of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to less than 1% for both outcomes after 39 minutes and 32 minutes of no heartbeat.
The likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage declines from 15% after one minute of CPR to less than 1% after 32 minutes with no heartbeat.
Researchers estimate survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest
``A person's chance of surviving while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The main measures of interest were survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a brain performance score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability) on a 5-point scale.
<1% for survival at 39 minutes and <1% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes.
The study was published by The BMJ today.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The author is deceptive by omitting important information and using emotional manipulation to make the reader feel concerned about the survival chances after a cardiac arrest. The article does not provide any sources or evidence for its claims, nor does it mention that CPR duration may vary depending on several factors such as location, availability of medical personnel, and patient condition. The author also implies that stopping CPR after 39 minutes is the optimal choice without acknowledging the potential risks and ethical dilemmas involved in making such a decision.
The article does not disclose any sources or references for its claims. It also does not mention that CPR duration may vary depending on several factors such as location, availability of medical personnel, and patient condition. This is deceptive because it suggests that there is a universal and objective standard for CPR duration without considering the context-dependent nature of this intervention.
The article says that 'the probability of a patient living and leaving the hospital with good or moderate brain function drops from 22% and 15%, respectively, after one minute of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to less than 1% for both outcomes after 39 minutes and 32 minutes of no heartbeat'. This is deceptive because it uses a misleading comparison between percentages that are not clearly explained or justified. It also does not mention the margin of error, the sample size, or the statistical methods used to obtain these results.
The article uses emotional manipulation by using words such as 'slim', 'surviving', 'avoiding', 'major brain damage', and 'optimal' to evoke fear, anxiety, and hope in the reader. This is deceptive because it does not provide any balanced or objective information that would help the reader understand the benefits and risks of CPR from different perspectives.
The article concludes by saying that 'the researchers say that these findings can help hospital staff, patients, and their relatives make informed decisions about when to stop or continue CPR'. This is deceptive because it implies that there is a clear and definitive answer to this complex and controversial question without acknowledging the uncertainty, variability, and ethical implications involved in making such a decision.
The article does not address any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may have influenced the study's design, methodology, results, or interpretation. It also does not mention any alternative hypotheses, limitations, strengths, weaknesses, or implications of the study.
The article states that 'the chances of surviving and avoiding major brain damage after a cardiac arrest in a hospital are very slim after a certain point of time'. This is deceptive because it does not specify what the 'certain point of time' is, nor does it provide any data or references to support this claim. It also uses vague terms such as 'very slim' and 'major brain damage' without defining them or quantifying them.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing a study published in The BMJ without providing any evidence or context for the findings. Additionally, there is no clear distinction between assertions made by the author and those quoted from the study.
> A new US study published by The BMJ today reveals that...
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes the patient by referring to them as a 'patient' rather than using their name. The use of phrases such as 'very slim after a certain point of time' and 'less than 1% for both outcomes after 39 minutes and 32 minutes of no heartbeat' creates an exaggerated sense of urgency that may be misleading to readers.
The probability of a patient living and leaving the hospital with good or moderate brain function drops from 22% and 15%, respectively, after one minute of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to less than 1% for both outcomes after 39 minutes and 32 minutes of no heartbeat.
The researchers say that these findings can help hospital staff, patients, and their relatives make informed decisions about when to stop or continue CPR.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on the topic of cardiac arrest as they are reporting for Interesting Engineering which is owned by Rizwan Choudhury who may have financial ties to companies in the medical industry.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of cardiac arrest as they are reporting on a study that was conducted by their employer.
Researchers estimate survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest
``A person's chance of surviving while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage declines from 15% after one minute of CPR to less than 1% after 32 minutes with no heartbeat.
``A new study shows that the duration of CPR during in-hospital cardiac arrest significantly impacts outcomes.
Research on duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest
The main measures of interest were survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a brain performance score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability) on a 5-point scale.
``The study aimed to quantify time dependent probabilities of outcomes in patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest as a function of duration CPR.
Accuracy
The duration of CPR during in-hospital cardiac arrest significantly impacts outcomes.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(0%)
The article contains a statement that implies the author is promoting their own product or service. The sentence 'Stay connected to the latest news with Physician's Weekly Insights from the leaders in medical research, trending topics in clinical medicine, and perspectives from your colleagues.
Insights
leaders in medical research
Physician's Weekly
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of physician's weekly as they are the publisher. They also have a financial tie to medical research and clinical medicine as these topics may be related to their business interests.
A new study shows that the duration of CPR during in-hospital cardiac arrest significantly impacts outcomes.
, , The study found that people who received longer periods of CPR had worse outcomes than those who received shorter durations.
Accuracy
The study found that people who received longer periods of CPR had worse outcomes than those who received shorter durations.
<1% for survival at 39 minutes and <1% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive because it uses sensationalism and emotional manipulation to attract readers. It implies that longer CPR duration leads to worse outcomes without providing any evidence or context for this claim. It also does not mention the limitations of the study, such as its small sample size, lack of randomization, or potential confounding factors. The author is ABC News and they are quoting their own chief medical correspondent who may have a bias in favor of shorter CPR duration.
The article only reports details that support the author's position and ignores others. It does not mention any potential benefits of longer CPR duration, such as preserving brain function, improving survival rates, or reducing complications. It also does not compare longer CPR duration to other interventions or treatments for in-hospital cardiac arrest.
The article uses a lie by omission by leaving out any context for why longer CPR duration may be necessary or beneficial. It does not explain how long CPR should ideally last, what factors influence its effectiveness, or what other treatments are available to improve survival and recovery from in-hospital cardiac arrest.
The article uses sensationalism by saying 'worse outcomes' without defining what that means or how common it is. It also says 'shows' instead of using the more accurate and cautious wording 'suggests'.
The author does not disclose any sources for their claim that longer CPR duration leads to worse outcomes, such as the study they are referring to or other experts in the field. This makes it hard for readers to verify or challenge the article's assertion.
The article implies that the study is conclusive and definitive without acknowledging its limitations. It does not mention how big the sample size was, how randomized it was, or what confounding factors were controlled for. It also does not provide any information on the quality of CPR delivery in different settings or by different providers.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that a new study shows the duration of CPR during in-hospital cardiac arrest significantly impacts outcomes. The author does not provide any evidence or details about the study itself.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that a study found longer duration of CPR during in-hospital cardiac arrest significantly impacts outcomes. However the author does not provide any context or background information about this topic and only quotes from the study without providing any additional sources to support their claim.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Dr. Jen Ashton is a cardiologist and the Chief Medical Correspondent for ABC News. She has financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs used in CPR procedures.
Research on duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest
``A person's chance of surviving while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest in hospital declines rapidly from 22% after one minute to less than 1% after 39 minutes, finds a US study published by The BMJ today.
The likelihood of leaving hospital with no major brain damage declines from 15% after one minute of CPR to less than 1% after 32 minutes with no heartbeat.
The main measures of interest were survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a brain performance score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability) on a 5-point scale.
The findings provide resuscitation teams, patients, and their surrogates with insights into the likelihood of favorable outcomes if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation continue to receive further cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
"The findings provide resuscitation teams, patients, and their surrogates with insights into the likelihood of favorable outcomes if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation continue to receive further cardiopulmonary resuscitation."
Accuracy
Researchers estimate survival chances during CPR for cardiac arrest
<1% for survival at 39 minutes and <1% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes.
The probability of a patient living and leaving the hospital with good or moderate brain function drops from 22% after one minute of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to less than 1% after 39 minutes and no heartbeat.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest. The authors are Masashi Okubo, Sho Komukai, Lars W Andersen, Robert A Berg, Michael C Kurz, Laurie J Morrison and Clifton W Callaway.
The study was conducted at a hospital in Japan where the first author is based. The authors mention that they have previously published research on cardiac arrest outcomes from this same hospital.
