Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Line 15: Line 15:
* Among 11,963 patients with PEA, only 11% survived, 62% of which had good neurological outcomes.<ref name="pmid16391216">{{cite journal| author=Nadkarni VM, Larkin GL, Peberdy MA, Carey SM, Kaye W, Mancini ME et al.| title=First documented rhythm and clinical outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest among children and adults. | journal=JAMA | year= 2006 | volume= 295 | issue= 1 | pages= 50-7 | pmid=16391216 | doi=10.1001/jama.295.1.50 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16391216  }} </ref>
* Among 11,963 patients with PEA, only 11% survived, 62% of which had good neurological outcomes.<ref name="pmid16391216">{{cite journal| author=Nadkarni VM, Larkin GL, Peberdy MA, Carey SM, Kaye W, Mancini ME et al.| title=First documented rhythm and clinical outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest among children and adults. | journal=JAMA | year= 2006 | volume= 295 | issue= 1 | pages= 50-7 | pmid=16391216 | doi=10.1001/jama.295.1.50 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16391216  }} </ref>


* According to the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium, the survival of patients with [[SCA]] during hospitalization is 8% among subjects with PEA compared to 30.5% for subjects with [[VT]] or [[VF]]; therefore, strategies for improving survival after PEA due to SCA should be implemented.  
* According to the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium, the survival of patients with [[SCA]] during hospitalization is 8% among subjects with PEA compared to 30.5% for subjects with [[VT]] or [[VF]]; therefore, strategies for improving survival after PEA due to SCA should be implemented.
 
* However, Kudenchuk et al demonstrated an increase in overall survival from 2000 to 2004 with an odds ratio of 1.51 at 1 month (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–2.11), and 1.90 at 1 year (95% CI, 1.27–2.85).<ref name="pmid22474256">{{cite journal| author=Kudenchuk PJ, Redshaw JD, Stubbs BA, Fahrenbruch CE, Dumas F, Phelps R et al.| title=Impact of changes in resuscitation practice on survival and neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resulting from nonshockable arrhythmias. | journal=Circulation | year= 2012 | volume= 125 | issue= 14 | pages= 1787-94 | pmid=22474256 | doi=10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.064873 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=22474256  }} </ref>
 
* According to Kudenchuk et al this increase in survival is attributed to the improvement of [[CPR]] techniques. However, this change in prevalence is unlikely because of improvement of response times. There are studies with different results, regarding response time. In the OPALS study (Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support) the increase of PEA cases occurred in a period of years where response times decreased.<ref name="pmid10199426">{{cite journal| author=Stiell IG, Wells GA, Field BJ, Spaite DW, De Maio VJ, Ward R et al.| title=Improved out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival through the inexpensive optimization of an existing defibrillation program: OPALS study phase II. Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support. | journal=JAMA | year= 1999 | volume= 281 | issue= 13 | pages= 1175-81 | pmid=10199426 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=10199426  }} </ref>  A study made in Sweden by Herlitz et al, point out that the decrease in response timed correlated with the decrease of VT/VF and the increase of PEA. Teodorescu et al found no significant differences in response times between VF/VT, PEA, and asystolia.<ref name="pmid21060069">{{cite journal| author=Teodorescu C, Reinier K, Dervan C, Uy-Evanado A, Samara M, Mariani R et al.| title=Factors associated with pulseless electric activity versus ventricular fibrillation: the Oregon sudden unexpected death study. | journal=Circulation | year= 2010 | volume= 122 | issue= 21 | pages= 2116-22 | pmid=21060069 | doi=10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.966333 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=21060069  }} </ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 21:58, 16 December 2013
Resident
Survival
Guide

Pulseless electrical activity Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Pulseless Electrical Activity from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Study of Choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X-Ray

Echocardiography and Ultrasound

CT scan

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis

CDC on Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis

Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis in the news

Blogs on Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis

Directions to Hospitals Treating Pulseless electrical activity

Risk calculators and risk factors for Pulseless electrical activity natural history, complications and prognosis

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Karol Gema Hernandez, M.D. [2]

Overview

PEA is associated with a poor prognosis, particularly if the underlying cause is not readily identified and treated. The presence of a QRS interval > 0.20 seconds is associated with a poorer prognosis. The survival of patients with PEA as a presenting rhythm for sudden cardiac arrest is poorer than ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation.[1]

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

  • The survival of patients with out of hospital occurrence of PEA is 19.5% compared to 11.2% among patients with in hospital PEA, likely due to the higher incidence of reversible causes among patients with out of hospital arrest.[1]
  • Among 11,963 patients with PEA, only 11% survived, 62% of which had good neurological outcomes.[2]
  • According to the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium, the survival of patients with SCA during hospitalization is 8% among subjects with PEA compared to 30.5% for subjects with VT or VF; therefore, strategies for improving survival after PEA due to SCA should be implemented.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Meaney PA, Nadkarni VM, Kern KB, Indik JH, Halperin HR, Berg RA (2010). "Rhythms and outcomes of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest". Critical Care Medicine. 38 (1): 101–8. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b43282. PMID 19770741. Retrieved 2012-09-16. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ↑ Nadkarni VM, Larkin GL, Peberdy MA, Carey SM, Kaye W, Mancini ME; et al. (2006). "First documented rhythm and clinical outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest among children and adults". JAMA. 295 (1): 50–7. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.50. PMID 16391216.

Template:WH Template:WS

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Pulseless_electrical_activity_natural_history,_complications_and_prognosis&oldid=917956"