2017
DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in an Average Brazilian Intensive Care Unit: Should We Perform Less or Better?

Abstract: IntroductionFew data can be found about cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit outside reference centers in third world countries.ObjectiveTo study epidemiology and prognostic factors associated with cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit (ICU) in an average Brazilian center.MethodsBetween June 2011 and July 2014, 302 cases of cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit were prospectively evaluated in 273 patients (age: 68.9 ± 15 years) admitted in three mixed units. Data regarding cardiac arrest and cardi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Non-shockable rhythms were more common in eight of nine studies reporting initial rhythm with the proportion of non-shockable rhythms ranging from 61.5 to 89.7%. The presumed aetiology of cardiac arrest was reported in four studies 21,24,25,27 with cardiac and respiratory causes accounting for 24.4–78.5% and 13.3–39.7% of arrests, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Non-shockable rhythms were more common in eight of nine studies reporting initial rhythm with the proportion of non-shockable rhythms ranging from 61.5 to 89.7%. The presumed aetiology of cardiac arrest was reported in four studies 21,24,25,27 with cardiac and respiratory causes accounting for 24.4–78.5% and 13.3–39.7% of arrests, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies that reported only a rate of incidence for ICU-CA and did not report an overall number of observations 5,21,23,27 were excluded from quantitative analyses. Similarly for analysis of outcomes, those with only a rate rather than numeric values were excluded.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations